TEHRAN- The war of the US–Israeli coalition against Iran has not only created a deep geopolitical crisis but has also once again shown that during wartime, media narratives can be as influential as missiles and drones in shaping global public opinion.

A closer look at the coverage of this war reveals that Western media, through their choice of words, headlines, images, and selective narratives, present a highly biased and one-sided view of events that is far removed from the realities on the ground in Iran.

One of the clearest examples of this bias is how civilian casualties in Iran are reported. The US attack on the southern city of Minab, which killed at least 175 people—mostly schoolgirls—is a glaring example of media censorship and distortion. Many major Western outlets mentioned this human tragedy only briefly, often attributing the information to “Iranian state media,” thereby implicitly questioning its credibility. By contrast, if a similar incident had occurred in Israel, the coverage would likely have dominated front pages, included in-depth interviews with families, and provided sustained human-interest reporting. This pattern clearly shows that Western media minimize Iranian victims while humanizing and amplifying Israeli victims.

Another example is the announcement of the loss of three US fighter jets on the second day of the war. The Pentagon claimed the planes were downed by “friendly fire” from Kuwait, yet independent analysts pointed out inconsistencies in timing and location that cast doubt on the official account. Despite this, Western media largely failed to follow up, and the story quickly faded from the news cycle, another case of censorship and lack of transparency in reporting.

Language itself plays a central role in shaping perceptions of violence. Terms like “take out” instead of “kill,” “decapitate” to describe the elimination of political or military leaders, and “boots on the ground” to refer to troop deployments, all serve to bureaucratize or sanitize the harsh reality of war. These linguistic choices make military actions seem rational, controlled, and even inevitable, while obscuring the human cost and complexity of Iran’s situation.

Another example of distorted coverage is the reporting of Iran’s strike on Bet Shemesh in Israel. One television network described it dramatically as “Iran’s fury,” highlighting the destruction of a school, a synagogue, and nearby homes. Yet when Israel attacks civilian areas in Iran, Gaza, or Lebanon, coverage is often neutral, understated, and rarely mentions civilian casualties. This clear double standard shows that Western media craft war narratives to align with US and Israeli policy agendas.

Headlines also play a key role in distortion. When Iran is targeted, headlines often begin with phrases like “Iran says” or “Iranian state media reports,” implicitly questioning the credibility of the information. In contrast, when Iran conducts a strike, headlines frequently use adjectives like “deadly” or “devastating,” framing the country as aggressive and unreliable, and implying that any Iranian action equates to violence or threat.

Western media also rely on labels and cognitive framing to shape perceptions. Iran is repeatedly described as a “rogue state,” “terrorist regime,” or “existential threat.” These labels do more than describe, they create a mental framework in which military action against Iran appears justified. Terms like “malign influence” exaggerate Iran’s regional role, presenting a vague, pervasive threat without specifying concrete evidence, making criticism of Iran appear immediate and legitimate.

Meanwhile, on-the-ground reporting from inside Iran often tells a different story. Contrary to Western portrayals of widespread panic, markets, cafes, and gas stations in many cities continue operating normally. Large public gatherings have taken place in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, and Mashhad, where thousands have protested foreign attacks and expressed support for Iran’s sovereignty. Western media often report these gatherings briefly, or dismissively as “state-organized demonstrations,” without exploring participants’ motivations or diversity. This approach not only misrepresents Iran as threatening but also undermines the agency and resilience of its people.

Media warfare is another front where bias is evident. Iran has produced humorous and graphic content in a Lego-style format, mocking Trump and Netanyahu, which has reached global audiences. These efforts show that Iran is active and strategic not only militarily but also in information and narrative warfare. Western outlets, by contrast, downplay or trivialize such campaigns, maintaining the image of Iran as passive and dangerous.

Analyses of the “America First” policy further illustrate media bias. Western outlets often depict the war as a purely Israeli initiative supported by the US, ignoring Iran’s strategic role in shaping the conflict and defending its national sovereignty. In reality, events including domestic protests, targeted Iranian responses to neighboring countries, and citizen engagement paint a far more complex and multidimensional picture. By focusing on apparent US confusion and ignoring Iran’s operational strategy, Western media push audiences toward a simplified, one-sided narrative.
Historical precedent confirms that this pattern of bias is not new. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, early media coverage often misrepresented the realities on the ground, only for the discrepancies between official narratives and actual events to emerge years later. Media have historically shaped public opinion and legitimized policies, and in the current war, the same pattern is repeating, now with even greater intensity.

Ultimately, the ongoing war is not merely a military confrontation; it is a struggle over narratives. Western media, through selective words, images, headlines, and sources, present a biased image that portrays Iran as passive and threatening, while erasing the agency and resilience of Iranian people. The evident bias, censorship of information, and focus on legitimizing US and Israeli actions produce a global public perception that is both distorted and one-sided.

Given these examples and analyses, it is clear that the primary responsibility of journalism during wartime should not be merely to repeat dominant narratives. Rather, journalists must critically examine these stories, compare them with on-the-ground realities, and provide a more complete, nuanced picturone that presents Iranian citizens not as passive victims but as active, informed agents shaping their own destiny, while exposing the distortions and biases of Western media.