Abbas Maghami, researcher in public diplomacy
Today, the modern battlefield is no longer confined to physical landscapes and weaponry. The outcome of war is determined just as much in the realm of narratives and media as they are on military terrain. Imagery, the framing of events, and the establishment of narratives around events can shift the very equations of war – and this is exactly what occurred in the war imposed on Iran by the Zionist regime.
In this complex and multilayered conflict, what transformed Iran from a mere reactive force into a narrative-shaping player was the decisive role of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in designing and directing the crisis narrative. This narrative not only validated Iran’s response on the ground as legitimate, but also succeeded in reshaping the global public perception of Israel.
Shaping the narrative from the onset of the crisis
In the initial hours following the Zionist regime’s attacks, Imam Khamenei, through a swift and unambiguous stance, delineated the Islamic Republic’s official narrative. In his first televised message, he unequivocally condemned the targeting of residential areas and the martyrdom of Iranian commanders and scientists as a “serious crime,” and issued a promise of “severe punishment” for the Zionist regime.
In his second televised address, he emphasized that Israel’s attack occurred at a time when Iran was engaged in indirect negotiations over its nuclear program – underscoring that it was Israel who initiated the war. He stated:
“This act, the Zionist regime’s foolish, malicious attack on our country, took place at a time when our government officials were engaged in negotiations indirectly and through intermediaries with the US side. There was no indication on the part of Iran that signaled a military move or a sudden, harsh move. Of course, it was suspected from the beginning that the United States was involved in the malicious move carried out by the Zionist regime. But considering their recent remarks, this suspicion is growing stronger day by day.”
Accordingly, he describes the initiation of the war as an illegitimate act, lacking any legal or moral justification. From the perspective of Iran’s Leader, what Israel pursued through its media narrative was an attempt to distort reality and promote the notion that Iran was on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, and that Israel, through a preemptive strike, had “saved the world.” This narrative aimed to shift the discourse from accountability to heroism, presenting Israel as a global savior rather than an aggressor.
In response, Imam Khamenei described Iran’s position around two key concepts: a “decisive” and “lawful” response. This way of describing the scene strengthened the Iran’s responsible and legitimate approach while simultaneously casting Israel as the primary instigator of the crisis.
Simultaneous command in the military and non-military arenas
A key element in this confrontation was the integration of field command with social leadership. Imam Khamenei did not merely appear as a high-ranking military commander – he also played a role as the designer of the crisis narrative and its public framing. By simultaneously managing both the battlefield and playing an active role in the media front, he was able – despite Western media efforts – to prove Iran not as an aggressor, but as a rational and deterrent power.
This portrayal had a tangible impact on global public opinion and shifted the tone of international media analysis. Outlets that had previously depicted Iran as an unpredictable or destabilizing actor were now compelled to acknowledge the rationality of its response and the legitimacy of its position. This shift in perception was the result of a meticulously designed strategy – one personally led by the Leader of the Islamic Republic himself.
The failure of Zionist regime’s project to impose a dominant narrative
On the other side of the equation, Zionist regime sought to impose a competing narrative on public opinion: to portray Iran as the initiator of the crisis, to frame its own response as defensive, and to present itself as a stable and deterrent power. However, this narrative project encountered obstacles from the outset.
The speeches and statements of Iran’s Leader were swiftly echoed across official media, like-minded networks, and even international platforms, preventing Zionist regime’s constructed version of events from gaining dominance.
The alternative narrative: National resilience and punishment of the aggressor
One of the most prominent aspects of the narrative strategy employed by Iran's leadership during this crisis was its simultaneous focus on two key concepts: “national resilience” and the “punishment of the aggressor.” On one hand, a message of strength and national unity was conveyed to the international community, demonstrating that Iran stood firm and united in the face of threats. On the other hand, in the international arena, it was emphasized that Iran’s response to Israel’s aggression was not only lawful and legitimate, but also proportionate to the attacks received and conducted within the framework of defending its national sovereignty. This multilayered approach enabled Iran to maintain domestic stability and resilience while also reinforcing the image of the Zionist regime as the initiator and source of regional tension, thereby preventing the formation of a global consensus against itself.
Additionally, in his third televised address following the Zionist regime’s attack, Imam Khamenei spoke of the Iranian people's unity with and strong support for the country’s Armed Forces and delivered a clear message to the world:
“Our Armed Forces are fully prepared, and the country’s officials, as well as the entire population, stand behind them.”
This reality not only invalidated the narrative promoted by Zionist regime’s officials – who had sought to depict the Iranian people as detached from the government and disillusioned with resistance – but, at the same time, it also served as a powerful affirmation of national unity. “Popular support,” as emphasized by the Leader from the battlefield context, served two critical functions: first, it provided a strong political and social backing for military decisions; and second, in response to Israel’s media offensive, it functioned as a tool in the narrative war and was able to undermine their propaganda efforts.
Emphasizing a principled stance and warning against the war of narratives
In his recent address during a meeting with the head and officials of the Judiciary, the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran unequivocally reaffirmed the country’s principled stance and challenged the opposing side’s attempts to distort reality. He stated:
“We did not welcome war. Let that be clear to everyone.… We weren’t seeking a war, but when the enemy attacked, our response was crushing… This is an undeniable fact that the enemy seeks to cast doubt on.”
This clear position not only once again reinforces Iran’s defensive stance, but also discredits the enemy’s false narrative portraying Iran as the initiator of war. Moreover, it reveals the essence of the ongoing war of narratives being waged at the level of global public opinion.
Conclusion
Although the recent imposed war against Iran began with missiles and drones, its ultimate outcome was decided in the field of narratives. In this field, alongside his operational leadership, the Leader of the Islamic Republic successfully portrayed a different image of Iran in global public opinion through a combination of astute positioning, coherent and well-timed statements, and strategic communications These depicted not only military might but also conveyed moral legitimacy and rational authority at the same time. In other words, Imam Khamenei was both the commander on the battlefield and the architect of meaning in this war.
(The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)
Comment