TEHRAN- When a country is portrayed for decades as dangerous, untrustworthy and inherently threatening, the plot of attacking it becomes easier to accept. The current war with Iran reflects this dynamic, after years in which mainstream Western media repeatedly cast it as unsafe, potential threat!

In their reports it has been common to read phrases like “Iran’s authoritarian regime suppresses dissent” or “Tehran’s nuclear ambitions threaten global security.” These lines, repeated across years and across outlets, have created a mental shortcut. For many readers and viewers, Iran was no longer a modern country with a rich history, civilized society, and internal debates. Yet, it became a fixed idea: a problem.

Contrary to that tarnished image, many foreign tourists who visit Iran are surprised by what they see. They often speak of a society that is more complex, more welcoming, and more normal than they expected. It is a gap shows how powerful media narratives can be.

When people hear the same message again and again, from different sources that appear independent, it begins to feel like an unquestionable truth. To better understand this, we need to look not only at what is said about Iran, but how it is said, how often it has been repeated, and what has been left out.

Major outlets such as The New York Times, BBC, CNN, The Guardian, Reuters, and The Washington Post usually describe Iran in very narrow and repetitive ways. Over time, certain words became almost automatic: “authoritarian regime,” “repressive system,” “destabilizing force,” “nuclear threat.” These were not occasional descriptions, they have almost became the standard language of reporting.

It is important to be clear: pointing out these patterns does not mean claiming that Iran is perfect or beyond criticism. No country is. The issue is about proportion, context, and consistency.

In reporting on Iran, certain patterns became clear. Iran’s actions were often described with terms such as: “aggression,” “interference,” “proxy warfare,” “destabilization.” Meanwhile, similar or stronger actions by the United States or Israel were described in softer terms: “defense,” “security concerns,” “deterrence.”

For years, they have repeatedly warned that Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon. Headlines often suggested urgency and danger: Iran is “months away,” Iran is “advancing rapidly,” Iran is a “growing threat.” 

Outlets like The Washington Post and The Guardian frequently focused on worst-case scenarios. At the same time, less attention was given to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that sometimes showed limits, inspections, and partial compliance. 
    
Even when diplomacy succeeded, as in the 2015 nuclear deal, the tone of coverage often remained suspicious. Though there was doubtful voices inside the country either. 

Instead of presenting the agreement as a major step toward reducing tension, many reports framed it as risky or temporary. Critics were given strong attention, repeating the idea that Iran could never be trusted. The result was a deeper belief among audiences that conflict with Iran was not only possible, but inevitable.

The New York Times has often used phrases like “Iran’s authoritarian regime” or “Iran’s nuclear ambitions threaten global security.” The Guardian has described Iran as a “repressive regime” and emphasized that “Iran’s role in Syria and Iraq continues to fuel instability.” BBC frequently refers to Iran’s nuclear program as “a growing concern for international security,” while also noting crackdowns on freedom of speech.

Similarly, Reuters often highlights “Iran’s crackdown on protests” and frames the country through sanctions, military activity, and suspicion. The Washington Post has repeatedly written that “Iran’s leaders continue to suppress dissent” and that its regional policies “destabilize the Middle East.”

About the so-called proxies, when Iran supported groups in the region, it was often called “fueling instability.” But when the United States carried out military operations or maintained bases in West Asia, it was framed as “maintaining stability” or “protecting interests.” This difference in language creates an imbalance atmosphere in which one side appears aggressive; the other appears responsible.

Over time, this kind of language has shaped a kind of automatic reactions that is the result of long-term narrative patterns. When people hear “Iran,” they think of danger. When they hear “U.S. response” or “Israeli defense,” they think of protection. 

Another key issue is whose voices are heard. In much Western coverage, Iranian voices are limited or filtered. Officials may be quoted, but often in ways that highlight tension or hostility. Also, ordinary Iranians, students, writers, researchers, workers, are rarely given space to speak for themselves in a full and balanced way.

Here, it is time to take a quick look at some roots of Iran’s mistrust of the West. A selection of them are: the 1953 coup against the government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, supported by the United States and the United Kingdom; U.S. support for Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran–Iraq War; the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by a U.S. naval vessel; the imposition of extensive economic sanctions that have affected the lives of ordinary people; and political pressure and efforts to isolate Iran internationally, to cite a few. 

Today, when U.S.-Israeli bombs fall on Iranian soil, they do not fall on an abstract “threat.” They fall on real people, families, workers, children, who have often been invisible in the stories told about them.

AM