Like many other conflicts in recent history, the US-Israeli war on Iran suggests that our concern should not only focus on the physical devastation and killing arising from the unprovoked attack.
In the interest of truth and moral clarity, we should also pay attention to the narratives scripted in ways largely aimed at manufacturing consent.
The language used by warmongers is often dressed up as an altruistic mission to promote human rights, democracy and peace in a foreign land painted as chaotic and misruled.
It is concerning when a wrong quietly transforms into a right, a clear red line blurs, a simple fact appears complicated, aggression pleads victimhood, and might claims right.
The 28 February attack was described as a pre-emptive strike. This implies that Iran was already on the verge of attacking the US – a claim that runs counter to the assertion of Joe Kent, then-director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who said that Iran posed “no imminent threat” to the US.
In other words, Iran was painted as a recalcitrant culprit that needed to be punished accordingly.
Kent resigned from his position as he could no longer “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran”.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
Other justifications were given for the attack – aimed at seeking public consent and support – namely to execute a regime change for the sake of the disgruntled people of Iran, to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, and to weaken Iran so as to ensure peace and stability in the region.
Should there be legitimate grievances among the Iranian people towards their government, let them resolve their problems themselves. Foreign powers have no business intervening.
Such a fig leaf is reminiscent of President George W Bush’s insistence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That naked lie killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, created political instability and fuelled Islamophobia after the imperial US invaded Iraq to topple the government of Saddam Hussein.
Meanwhile, the sitting Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife Cilia Flores were kidnapped by the Trump administration in January 2026 on spurious charges of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking – charges Maduro has denied. Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, was clearly on Trump’s mind.
‘Operation Epic Fury’
The unilateral war on Iran, codenamed “Operation Epic Fury”, is clearly illegal. It violates international law, as the invading states transgressed the sovereignty of a country that has already been subjected to American sanctions for decades.
Silence among some world leaders over this contravention of international law appeared to have emboldened the invading forces.
The US and Israel bombed Iran’s military installations, residential areas and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, railways, bridges, banks, schools, universities and research centres.
These are war crimes committed by the invading forces. But the Western corporate media seldom clearly described them as such.
Heart-wrenching was the killing of at least 165 students and their teachers at the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab. They were struck at least twice – apparently as an arrogant display of US-Israeli precision targeting.
Euphemisms sanitise brutal and barbaric acts and, in the long run, normalises them. Using the term “campaign”, for instance, to describe this war of aggression seems mischievous. Equally misleading is “collateral damage” – a term that strips out the vital human elements of suffering, blood, shredded bodies, death and the loss of loved ones.
War crimes and double standards
The war bore witness to the invading forces killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials.
This violent attempt at regime change is murder – a criminal offence that apparently did not evoke much outrage among leaders and the legacy media in the supposedly civilised world.
What would have been the response from Western mainstream media, political pundits and politicians if a similar crime were committed against, say, Trump or other Western leaders? Let that sink in for a moment.
To cut through the fog: President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war of aggression against Iran resonates with the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of terrorism – “the systematic use of violence and intimidation to coerce a government or community, especially into acceding to specific political demands.”
In other words, this war resembles a terrorist act – a label the US administration, and its European allies, tend to assign to countries it deems a security threat to the supposedly free world.
And if the “misconduct” of countries on the US terrorist list is deemed intolerable, there is a likelihood that the US will impose economic sanctions or aid cuts on them, causing untold misery.
Cuba is currently suffering under the crushing weight of American sanctions on energy imports. Supporters of the Trump administration and like-minded people do not appear to care how unjust and inhuman such sanctions are.
The mighty get to dictate who the culprit is – and impose the harsh punishment they see fit.
When the Strait of Hormuz was initially closed by the Iranian government, Trump, many European states and the legacy media firmly condemned it, as it choked energy supply to the rest of the world. Alarm was triggered when the waterway closure hit them where it hurts.
In contrast, when the Rafah crossing was blocked by the Israeli regime, not many countries seemed to care – even though they knew such cruel action could, and did, cause mass starvation, untreated diseases due to acute shortages of medicine, and deaths among Palestinians who have already been oppressed for decades.
Many looked the other way when this existential threat confronted the Palestinians – whom some Zionists have considered human animals, two-legged animals, subhumans and worthy of other such dehumanising labels.
Framing the enemy
Another instance: certain Western countries and Arab states condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks on US military bases in the Gulf states, but did not do the same regarding the unprovoked attack by the US and Israel on Iran.
The double standards employed here ignore the fact that the US and Israel triggered this unnecessary war in the first place.
Iran is conveniently framed by certain media and other quarters as the rogue state run by “mad mullahs” and a threat to regional stability.
The reality is that demonising your adversary in a crafted narrative helps pave the way towards bombing them.
The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
