TEHRAN – At midnight on June 13, 2025, Iran shook regional dynamics by launching Operation True Promise III in response to a direct Israeli aggression. 

The operation, which coincided with a televised message the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, struck the heart of Israel’s military and security centers with 22 waves of missile attacks and 10 drone strikes over 12 days. Yet, alongside the real damage and heavy blows, another scene emerged—perhaps more significant than the battlefield itself: the battlefield of narratives.

From the very first hours, a stark contrast appeared between the on-the-ground reality and the headlines of mainstream Western media. Newspapers like Financial Times and New York Times reported that "most missiles were intercepted" and "damage was minor." Meanwhile, images circulating on social media and field reports showed Tel Aviv and Haifa engulfed in flames and smoke, buildings collapsed, and critical infrastructure paralyzed. This gap was not just a discrepancy in details but a sign of a larger phenomenon: narrative management through soft censorship.

Israel, by banning the publication of images and accurate statistics and threatening local media, sought to conceal the true extent of the damage. This prohibition went so far that even Israeli journalists faced legal repercussions for sharing photos and videos. What was communicated to the world was a manipulated version of reality, aimed at maintaining domestic morale, preventing diplomatic pressure, and hiding the failures of multi-layered defense systems like the Iron Dome.
Media experts call this approach "soft censorship." Soft censorship does not mean completely removing the news but rewriting reality within a controlled framework. Israel and its Western allies attempted to turn an evident defeat against Iran’s hyper-sonic Fateh missiles, ballistic Sejil and Qadr missiles, and Arash 2 and Shahed 136 drones into a "defensive victory." In this rewriting, truth became the victim, and headlines turned into psychological tools.

Meanwhile, independent reports and some regional sources highlighted unprecedented damage to Israel’s infrastructure and vital centers, including the Ministry of Defense headquarters, the military-intelligence complex at Kirya, the Nevatim and Tel Nof airbases, Mossad headquarters, Haifa oil refinery, the industrial zone of Kiryat Gat, and Ben Gurion Airport. One of the key targeted sites was the Weizmann Institute in southern Tel Aviv—a scientific-research center active in advanced technology, biosciences, and military research, recognized as one of Israel’s pillars of technology and innovation. The destruction of this center not only harmed Israel’s research and technological capacity but also demonstrated Iran’s ability to precisely target sensitive civilian-military centers. It sent a clear message regarding regional deterrence: the capability to respond accurately to threats—even at the heart of enemy scientific and technological centers—is part of a deterrence tool that Israel was unprepared for.

International reactions were also notable. The United States, in an initial statement, labeled Iran as a "destabilizing actor" but limited its response to verbal support. Washington was well aware that acknowledging the full extent of the damage would mean admitting the vulnerability of its main regional ally. The European Union called for restraint but could not clearly address the real scale of casualties and damages. Only some non-mainstream media in Latin America, Africa, and Asia highlighted the narrative gap by publishing field images. This silence and duality in positions were themselves part of the narrative war—a narrative that preferred the image of an "invincible Israel" to remain intact.

Military analysts, however, were less constrained by such considerations. Russian analysts and some retired Western officials acknowledged that the penetration of Iranian missiles deep into Tel Aviv represented "a strategic defeat" for Israel. They emphasized that the effectiveness of the Iron Dome against hyper-sonic missiles and mass attacks is severely limited. In their view, this operation demonstrated that Israel’s military superiority was no longer guaranteed and that the concept of deterrence in the region had entered a new phase.

The human dimension of the conflict was also distorted in narratives. In Iran, over a thousand people were killed, and nearly five thousand wounded, including 160 women and children. Israel claimed all of these were "legitimate targets," while most of the victims were ordinary civilians. On the other side, Israel admitted only 28 dead and over three thousand wounded, while other sources reported over 800 casualties. This discrepancy further highlighted that Israeli censorship was not only for domestic control but also aimed to rewrite its global image.

Economic consequences of the operation were also censored. The strike on Haifa refinery disrupted fuel production and increased prices. Production stoppages in Kiryat Gat affected the microprocessor industry and international technology collaborations. Ben Gurion Airport was closed for hours, impacting trade and tourism. Yet, mainstream media reduced all this to "minor damages."

The future of regional deterrence is now defined in the light of this narrative war. If Israel continues to deny defeat and relies on censorship and distortion, it will effectively weaken its deterrence. Public opinion, both domestic and regional, will sooner or later notice the gap between reality and narrative. In other words, concealment may have a short-term psychological effect but erodes legitimacy and public trust over time.

Iran, through Operation True Promise III, demonstrated that it not only possesses a strong response capacity on the battlefield but is also prepared for soft warfare. Images of Tel Aviv ablaze, although censored, remain in the collective global memory. Videos that bypassed censorship had an impact equivalent to over a thousand official reports. This is precisely where official narratives failed: reality, even if buried, finds a way to surface.

At last, Operation True Promise III was not merely a military confrontation but a historic moment in revealing the gap between truth and narrative. Israel and its allies attempted to transform defeat into victory through censorship and distortion, but the images and evidence told a different story. The operation carried a crucial lesson; which is that in the era of multi-layered media and social networks, defeat can no longer be hidden behind headlines.