As missiles lit up the skies in the escalating confrontation between Israel and Iran, another war was unfolding.
This one was waged across screens and servers, through headlines and hashtags. In this battleground of perception, Western and Eastern media fought to frame the conflict, claim moral authority and influence global opinion.
While physical clashes drew global attention, a parallel battle raged over narratives. Even international outcry, such as that from International Atomic Energy Authority Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, who called Israel’s strike on Iran a violation of United Nations resolutions protecting peaceful nuclear infrastructure, failed to slow the momentum.
On the ground, missiles flew. Online, stories fought to shape minds.
As a communication scholar, my interest lies not in missile silos or military logistics, but in how wars are told, contested and remembered.
- Advertisement -
This conflict, like others before it has become a proving ground not only for military tactics but for new tools: drones, cyberwarfare and AI-driven surveillance.
Experts in defense and international relations have long noted that wars, whether orchestrated or organic, often double as live testbeds for emerging technologies.
A July 2024 publication, Innovations in War Strategy and Technology: Shaping Modern Warfare by Total Military Insight, describes modern war as a kind of living laboratory, where strategy and technology evolve under fire.
But in today’s conflicts, success is not just about battlefield victories but also about who tells the most compelling story.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Media has become part of the arsenal. Around the world, including in countries like Malawi, political actors rely on trusted media outlets to push their narratives.
In the Israel– Iran conflict, Western media largely sided with Israel, emphasising its democratic credentials, the threat of extremism and the precision of its military.
Eastern-aligned media, from Iran, Russia and parts of the Global South, portrayed Israel as the aggressor, invoking colonial legacies, civilian suffering and resistance.
Western outlets highlighted Israel’s right to self-defense and its strategic restraint. Eastern ones depicted Iran as provoked but morally justified in its response. In this fog of spin, finding an unfiltered truth became nearly impossible.
English-speaking audiences mostly heard Western perspectives, from CNN, BBC and The New York Times, which often reflected United States (US) and Israeli viewpoints.
Counter-narratives from Al Jazeera, RT and Iranian state media focused on themes of occupation, sovereignty and the human cost of war. Yet these voices were frequently dismissed as propaganda.
In May 2024, for instance, Israel banned Al Jazeera from operating within its borders, citing national security. Its offices were shuttered; broadcasts halted.
Iran, meanwhile, routinely accuses Western outlets like CNN and the BBC of pushing imperialist or Islamophobic narratives. During the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests, Iranian state broadcasters branded CNN’s coverage as “psychological warfare”.
Adding to the chaos is the surge in AI-generated misinformation. Both sides, along with their digital supporters, flooded the web with deepfakes, doctored videos and synthetic news. The result? A dense “infospheric smog” where fact and fiction blur.
On Israel’s side, outdated footage was repurposed to depict current events. The Isreal Defence Force, for example, shared old missile strike videos on X (formerly Twitter) that were later flagged as misleading.
Pro-Israel content creators circulated AI-generated images of US bombers over Tehran and fake protest scenes mocking Iran.
Iranian media was not far behind, distributing AI-fabricated images of downed US jets and staged scenes of destruction in Tel Aviv, none of which happened.
But amid this flood of content, major outlets have increasingly abandoned objectivity, opting instead to become players in the narrative war.
What looks like journalism is often just choreography; carefully crafted to reinforce political agendas. When the goal becomes affirmation rather than inquiry, journalism loses its soul.
In theory, people everywhere should be free to speak on global conflicts. In practice, that freedom is uneven.
In democracies like the US, criticism of Israel or support for Palestine may be shadow-banned, demonetised, or buried by algorithms. In authoritarian states like Iran, dissent is met with surveillance, censorship or imprisonment.
Voices from the Global South—Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia—are too often drowned out by louder, wealthier media giants.
Yet independent journalism persists. There are outlets that continue to challenge dominant narratives.
Ultimately, social media offers both promise and peril. Anyone can speak, but not everyone gets heard or believed. The resulting swirl of real and fake voices makes it hard to know what is authentic and what is manipulation.
In today’s media ecosystem, war coverage is no longer neutral. Information has become a weapon, used to expose, but also to distort, divide and dominate.
