TEHRAN - One month after the United States and Israel launched their military attack on Iran, the conflict continues to rage across the region. This war has caused widespread destruction, civilian deaths, and deep instability throughout the Middle East.

While the physical fighting dominates headlines, another equally important battle is unfolding in the world of information, one that shapes global public opinion and influences how the conflict is understood. Around the world, millions of people have expressed their opposition to the war.

In cities such as Chicago, London, Berlin, and many others, large anti-war protests have demanded an end to violence and respect for international law. These demonstrations reflect a global skepticism about the idea that bombing and military aggression can bring legitimate solutions. Even within the United States, significant portions of the population question the necessity of the strikes and call for the protection of civilian lives in Iran.

Despite this broad opposition, major US media outlets often present a very different story. Coverage frequently aligns closely with official U.S. and Israeli narratives, emphasizing strategic justifications, security concerns, and the idea that the attacks are defensive or necessary. This pattern is a classic example of what scholars Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman call “manufacturing consent,” a process in which mass media shape public perception to align with the interests of elites and governments. Media do not necessarily lie outright, but they select which events to report, how to frame them, and whose voices to include or exclude. In the context of the war on Iran, this framing encourages audiences to see U.S. and Israeli actions as reasonable, while Iranian responses are depicted as aggressive or destabilizing.

This imbalance is especially evident in the way responsibility and causality are reported. In most U.S. coverage, Iranian military responses are described as escalation, provocation, or reckless behavior. Meanwhile, U.S. and Israeli attacks are often presented as targeted, strategic, or defensive measures. This subtle asymmetry in language shapes moral perception, suggesting that the US and Israeli violence is legitimate and Iran’s retaliation is unjustified. By framing Iran primarily as the aggressor, U.S. media obscure the fact that the conflict was initiated by U.S. and Israeli military action, making it harder for audiences to see the full picture of who bears responsibility.

Another major flaw is the lack of historical and structural context. American news often focuses on the outbreak of missile strikes and air attacks without exploring the decades of sanctions, covert operations, cyberattacks, and political pressures that preceded them. By neglecting these underlying causes, coverage presents the war as an abrupt crisis rather than the outcome of long-term geopolitical tension. Without this background, audiences are deprived of the tools needed to understand the full scale of the conflict, its roots, and the consequences of foreign intervention.

The framing of the conflict is reinforced by reliance on official sources. Reporters frequently quote government officials, military spokespeople, and analysts aligned with U.S. or Israeli interests. Independent voices, scholars critical of intervention, and perspectives from Iranian civil society are often absent or marginalized. In some cases, journalists are pressured to conform to government positions or fear losing access to essential sources if they publish criticism. This structural dependence limits the diversity of viewpoints and narrows the range of acceptable discourse, effectively silencing perspectives that question the war or highlight its human costs.

Human suffering is another dimension that receives insufficient attention. While Iranian casualties are reported, they are often treated as numbers embedded in strategic analysis rather than as human stories. Coverage rarely focuses on the personal tragedies, the displacement of families, or the destruction of civilian infrastructure. In contrast, casualties affecting Western or allied forces are frequently presented with detailed human narratives, generating empathy and concern. This imbalance distances audiences from the real experiences of millions of Iranian civilians, subtly justifying military actions by reducing their moral impact.

The way U.S. media portray Iran itself also reflects bias. Coverage often reduces the country to its leadership, military capabilities, or nuclear program, overlooking the voices of ordinary Iranians, activists, academics, and humanitarian workers. By focusing narrowly on political elites and military actions, the media dehumanize the population and obscure the social, cultural, and political diversity within Iran. As a result, the public is left with a flattened, one-dimensional view of the country, which reinforces the idea that it is a threat rather than a nation of real people enduring war.

Global public opinion tells a different story. Around the world, people have protested against the war, condemned attacks on civilians, and questioned the legality of U.S. and Israeli actions under international law. Civil society organizations, student groups, labor unions, and religious institutions have voiced opposition. Even within the United States, demonstrations in cities like Chicago reflect domestic skepticism toward the war. Yet these voices of dissent are often underreported, minimizing their visibility and creating a misleading impression that public support for the conflict is strong or unanimous.

The stakes of media representation are profound. How the war is presented affects public perception, shapes international pressure, and influences the willingness of governments and populations to demand accountability. When US media selectively highlight certain events, prioritize official statements, and marginalize dissenting perspectives, they construct a narrative that makes military aggression appear reasonable and necessary. This is precisely how consent for war is “manufactured” — the public comes to accept policies and actions they might otherwise oppose if they were fully informed.

Ultimately, the war on Iran is as much a battle over information as it is a battle on the ground. Competing narratives seek to define legitimacy, responsibility, and moral authority. For global audiences to understand the true scale and consequences of the conflict, media coverage must go beyond government perspectives and strategic framing. It must include historical context, human stories, Iranian voices, and international criticism. Only by presenting a more complete, balanced, and honest account can audiences make informed judgments about the conflict and its consequences for millions of people.

In this moment, the world is watching not only missiles and military bases, but also how information shapes perception. The role of journalism should be to illuminate truth, expose power, and give voice to those affected. Instead, the current mainstream coverage in the United States often prioritizes government agendas over human realities, amplifies certain voices while silencing others, and frames war as acceptable. Until media confront these structural biases, the public will continue to receive an incomplete and distorted picture of the war on Iran.