Ceasefire on the Battlefield, War in the Media
WANA (Jun 30) – After twelve days of military clashes, the Iran–Israel ceasefire was announced without a formal resolution, without public negotiations, and without any clear mediation. It was an unprecedented ceasefire that was forged less on the battlefield than in the media space. This experience carries a clear message: the fighting has stopped, but it hasn’t ended. Only its primary arena has changed.
In this situation, “narrative” has become the main weapon for both sides. Immediately after the ceasefire was announced, Israel launched its narrative-building campaign, aiming to seize the initiative. Its official spokespeople delivered targeted messages in the media and even in international forums such as the UN Security Council, framing the war as a “defensive deterrence operation to protect national security.” Many global media outlets and social media platforms quickly adopted this line: Iran as a “potential threat needing to be stopped,” and Israel as the “defender.”
Iran’s weakness, however, was exposed precisely here. The Iranian state media, with its slow, one-dimensional, and mostly slogan-driven structure, failed to offer a competitive or convincing counter-narrative. While Israel systematically invested in shaping the views of young Western and even Persian-speaking audiences, Iran was largely absent from this arena or limited itself to repetitive, lifeless statements.
A clear example of this narrative battle was the spread and entrenchment of the rumor of an “Israeli commando infiltration” in Iran. This claim first appeared in Persian-language media abroad—especially Iran International, whose ties to Israeli security projects have been analyzed repeatedly. The initial source was merely the vague comments of Israel’s army chief, with no operational evidence. Yet that was enough for a network of accounts and channels to transform this “possibility” into widespread belief. The fake news worked exactly as designed, exploiting public fear and distrust.
Claim of Israeli Commandos Entering Fordow Site Dismissed as a Bluff
WANA (Jun 27) – While U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that Mossad forces entered Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, informed sources in Qom Province, where the site is located, have firmly denied the allegation. Some opposition social media channels have circulated fabricated videos in an attempt to support Trump’s assertion. Trump, following the alleged […]
The information war didn’t stop at official statements. Israel, with the help of Persian-language outlets based abroad—including networks with overt or covert ties to its security agencies—revived an old but effective strategy: manufacturing public doubt.
Kambiz Norouzi, an Iranian legal expert and media analyst, explains: “In the days following the ceasefire, Israeli or pro-Israeli or anonymous sources repeatedly published reports and stories suggesting that senior Iranian military and civilian officials were in contact with Israeli intelligence. These stories never offered clear, documented proof—just enough to sow doubt. This approach spreads suspicion about everyone.”
He illustrates the method with a historical example: “In the 1970s, SAVAK [the Shah’s secret police] spread the rumor that one in every four or five Iranians was an informant. This lie, passed by word of mouth, created so much general suspicion that ordinary people became extremely cautious about criticizing the Shah’s regime even among friends and family, fearing that one in four or five was a snitch.”
A news post from Iran International claims some Iranian officials negotiated with Russia to leave the country during the war / WANA News Agency
Norouzi calls this technique “manufacturing public doubt” and stresses: “Doubt is psychologically destructive. When it’s clearly stated that someone is a spy, everyone knows and it ends there. But when it’s vague and ambiguous, suspicion can target anyone.”
Iran’s state media avoids addressing certain realities, fearing it will damage its legitimacy. It prefers to deny or censor sensitive topics like infiltration, corruption, internal disagreements, or security vulnerabilities. But this silence cedes the field to the adversary. The enemy’s narrative is precisely designed around these “mental red lines” of society: infiltration, betrayal, corruption, incompetence. Smart rumor campaigns exploit the public’s fears and sensitivities.
Mohammadreza Eslami, an Iranian political analyst, says: “A military ceasefire between Iran and Israel has been established, but the real battle is over controlling the narrative and shaping public opinion, where Israel has been more successful, portraying Iran as the aggressor.”
A view of Iranian newspapers, early hours of ceasefire, in Tehran, Iran, June 24, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
He argues: “Narrative-building generates power. It can lead to sanctions or support. But Iran’s state media, with its outdated, one-dimensional language and formats, simply can’t compete in this arena. Israel has managed the information war well across social media and global outlets, while Iran lacks an effective presence.”
He also notes: “The speeches by Israel’s representative at the UN Security Council were part of a professional, targeted narrative strategy aimed especially at young Western audiences. Iran’s official media needs to shift from merely reading statements to being narrative-driven and dialogic, to leverage media experts, and to respect the audience’s intelligence.”
Hossein Najafi, an Iranian politician, also says: “The narrative tension between the U.S. and Israel over the alleged attack on Fordow reveals a deep rift within the enemy’s camp, creating a strategic opportunity for Iran to highlight this discord and strengthen its credibility in global public opinion.”
A new satellite image of the Fordow underground facility shows holes that are likely the result of U.S. bunker-buster missile strikes /WANA News Agency
He analyzes: “The claim of an attack on the Fordow facility led to clear disputes between the political, security, and media establishments of the U.S. and Israel, to the point where they accused each other of lying. The West’s official narrative of a successful strike lost legitimacy. Iran can exploit this narrative gap to strengthen its diplomatic and media position, turning the enemy’s failed story into a source of regional consensus-building and legitimacy in the cognitive war.”
Today, war is waged not only with missiles and drones but also in people’s minds and on social networks. Media have become silent but precise weapons. In such circumstances, if Iran wants to survive this battle, it must abandon outdated, one-way structures. Narrative-building requires clarity, honesty, respect for the audience’s intelligence, and active, professional engagement in global spaces. Without that, any claim of “victory” will remain mere domestic propaganda, while the enemy can, even under a ceasefire, create mental divisions and push society toward erosion and distrust.
