Iran continues to resist US and Israeli military strikes, defying predictions of a quick victory and setting the stage for a prolonged and defining 21st-century conflict

DESPITE relentless military strikes by the United States and Israel, Iran is standing firm and refusing to concede victory to the two aggressors and instigators of what is shaping up to be a defining conflict. This may well become one of the most consequential wars of the 21st century.

The resistance runs counter to the expectations of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump expected and proclaimed a quick victory, similar to the outcome in Venezuela.

He also anticipated regime change following the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and claimed that dozens of Iran’s top leaders were eliminated in the opening phase of the campaign. However, reality on the ground has proven different.

Western think-tanks and the mass media have largely echoed these predictions of a quick victory. Their optimism has been fuelled by an undeclared war coalition where European and Middle East allies have provided logistical, intelligence and combat support to fight the war on behalf of the US and Israel. This collective effort, without a formal declaration of hostilities, is unprecedented in modern warfare.

A century of intervention: Roots of the conflict

Although the duration of the war is subject to speculation, there should be no controversy or doubt about which party – the US and Israel on one side and Iran on the other –  bears the responsibility for initiating it.

Much of the Western mainstream media and many Western commentators have not only refused to acknowledge and condemn the culpability of the US and Israel in the origins of the conflict. They have also been long engaged in a propaganda exercise aimed at obscuring key issues and developments relating to Iran’s recent history.

This has hindered a fact-based, independent and critical understanding of the roots of Iranian distrust, its relationship with the West and what the eventual outcome of the war may mean for stakeplayers and the rest of the world.

The attempt by Western media to suppress the truth today has been preceded by over 40 years of demonising the Iranian government. It began when the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which ousted Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, replaced his rule with an Islamic republic led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Fuelled by widespread opposition to the Shah’s autocracy, Westernisation and economic inequality, massive protests and strikes forced him to flee on Jan 16, 1979, leading to the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty.

Less featured in reporting on this momentous change is that the Shah’s rise to power followed the 1953 coup d’état, orchestrated by the US and the UK to protect their oil and political interests in Iran and the Middle East. Known as Operation Ajax by the CIA and Operation Boot by MI6, the coup saw the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Since then, the US and the West, driven largely by the same political and economic interests that motivated their initial intervention 72 years ago – but now with a strong and what critics describe as a dominant Israeli role in instigating the present war – is attempting another regime change to install a government subservient to the US and its allies.

Western media as war mongers

There is irrefutable evidence that Western mass media have played an active role in shaping international perceptions of Iran rather than simply reporting events.

Several specific narratives and labelling appear prominently in the West’s leading news agencies’ attempt to frame the Iranian government as an international threat and pariah.

Key labels and narrative strategies include: -“rogue state” and “terrorist” regime – Western outlets frequently characterise the government as a dangerous, irrational and a “terrorist” actor.

-“boodthirsty thugs” – following the death of Ali Khamenei, the rhetoric in the Western media has intensified, with the Iranian leadership demonised in highly moralistic terms such as “bloodthirsty thugs” and justification of the present military action as retribution or justice.

-“existential threat” (nuclear and missile focus) – media reports have regularly emphasised Iran’s nuclear programme and ballistic missile capabilities, describing them as an “existential threat” to regional neighbours and Europe, despite providing no credible evidence.

-“internal suppressor” vs “civilisation” – coverage often contrasts the “brutal” suppression of Iranian protesters with a “civilisation script”, framing intervention as a necessity for protecting the Iranian people from their own government.

-“unprovoked aggressor” –  despite the blatant initiation of military strikes by Western-aligned forces, the media often frames Iranian responses as unprovoked aggression rather than defence, reversing the narrative of culpability.

Good vs evil trope

Other terms designed to dehumanise the Iranian leadership and frame the conflict in “good vs evil” terms include the emphasis given to Trump’s speeches and social media statements whilst suppressing or blanking responses by the Iranians and critics of the war:

“vicious group of very hard, terrible people” – used by Trump recently to describe the Iranian leadership.

“highly unstable and dangerous regime” – often invoked to suggest that traditional deterrence or diplomacy is impossible because the actors are irrational.

“the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” – a long-standing staple in Washington that frames any of its strikes as a counter-terrorism operation rather than an act of war.

Civilisational and religious tropes

Perhaps the most dangerous media messaging is the shift from secular politics to “clashes of civilisations” and “theological destiny” narratives, such as:

“malign influence” – a catch-all term used by the Pentagon and think-tanks to describe Iranian regional activities, suggesting a “sickness” that needs to be “extinguished” by force.

“the mullahs” – a shorthand frequently used to emphasise the theocratic nature of the Iranian state, implying it is archaic and incompatible with the modern secular West.

“biblical armageddon” – in some Israel and US political circles, rhetoric has leaned into apocalyptic imagery, framing the conflict as a “divine plan” or a “signal fire” for the return of Christ.

Other labelling and consequences

The Western media have taken to publicising statements by politicians and commentators, justifying the bypassing of international law.

For now, the phrase “imminent threats” is bandied about to justify “anticipatory self-defence” and to explain why there is no need for a formal declaration of war and also why peace is not possible without a total and unconditional surrender by Iran.

The Western media’s framing, selective reporting, double standards and the exclusion of counter narratives have led to strategic blindness and have played a role in the eventual military defeats of the US in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

It is a pattern that is being repeated in Iran today.

Lim Teck Ghee’s AnotherTake is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

 The Sun Malaysia