US–Iran War: Competing Narratives and the Changing Information Environment

Introduction

For decades, US media have played an important role in shaping international perceptions of American wars and military interventions through the selection of sources, images, terminology, and priorities. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya, media narratives contributed to the broader political environment surrounding US interventions by helping legitimize military action, reinforce strategic objectives, and sustain public support. The US–Iran war, however, presents a more contested information environment. Despite Washington’s considerable military and technological capabilities, its presentation of military success has not translated uniformly into perceptions of political victory. At the same time, Iran, despite its comparatively limited military and economic capabilities, has used social media, digital platforms, visual content, satire, animation, and alternative media ecosystems to challenge dominant Western interpretations of the conflict.

US Media and the Construction of a Victory Narrative

The American narrative surrounding the war has been strongly influenced by the language used by the Trump administration. Washington has repeatedly highlighted US military achievements and the destruction of Iranian military capabilities as evidence of success. Parts of the US media, particularly outlets sympathetic to the administration, have adopted elements of this framing by presenting battlefield destruction and continued strikes as indicators of military victory. Fox News, for example, reported that the war was approaching “completion” while President Trump considered the next phase of the conflict.

However, the American media environment has not presented a completely uniform narrative. Other major news organizations have questioned whether military achievements can automatically be equated with strategic or political victory. PBS NewsHour examined claims by President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth regarding US “victory,” particularly the question of whether military accomplishments had fulfilled the broader objectives of the war. Reuters similarly emphasized the distinction between the military damage inflicted on Iran and the unresolved strategic consequences of the conflict. Its reporting highlighted Iran’s continued resistance to US and Israeli strikes and questions surrounding Washington’s endgame.

This difference is important because military destruction and political success are not necessarily the same. Images of destroyed targets, aircraft, missiles, and precision strikes can provide visible evidence of military capability, but they do not necessarily demonstrate that an adversary has accepted the political terms of the opposing side. As long as the conflict continues without an uncontested political settlement, competing interpretations of “victory” remain possible. 

Visual Communication and US Military Power

Visual communication has been another important component of the American information strategy. The White House and Pentagon have used social-media content featuring military imagery and popular cultural references to communicate the scale of US military capabilities, particularly to younger digital audiences. This approach presents complex military operations through easily recognizable visual formats while reinforcing perceptions of technological superiority and overwhelming military power.

One example cited in the source was a video depicting US strikes against Iranian targets. The footage combined real military strike clips with imagery inspired by the video game Call of Duty, including “killstreak” animations. The video was distributed through the US Central Command’s X account and used music and rapid editing to create an entertainment-oriented presentation of military operations.

Religious and Political Messaging

Another feature of the US information environment has been the use of religious symbolism. Senior Pentagon-related accounts shared military imagery incorporating the words “SEND ME,” while Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell referenced Isaiah 6:8 in social-media messaging. President Trump also incorporated religious themes into his public justification of the war.

According to the source, this approach generated criticism, particularly from those who viewed the use of religious imagery as contributing to a framing of the conflict in moral or religious terms. The concern identified in the source is that such messaging could potentially be exploited by extremist actors to portray the conflict as a confrontation against Islam. Trump also shared and later deleted an image portraying himself in a religious setting while criticizing Pope Leo XIV, who had publicly criticized the US and Israeli military operation in Iran.

Domestic Perceptions and the Limits of the Victory Narrative

The continuation of the war without a clearly defined political outcome has complicated efforts to sustain a simple victory narrative. The source argues that the administration’s movement from military language toward framing the conflict as a struggle between “good and evil” generated controversy and affected perceptions of US involvement.

Reuters reported in August that 35 percent of Americans supported the war, while 50 percent expected the Middle East to become more chaotic as a result of the conflict. The same reporting placed the cost of the war to the United States at approximately $37.5 billion and reported the deaths of 18 US service members. These figures demonstrate the difficulty of sustaining a universally accepted narrative of success when military operations generate continuing political, financial, and human costs.

Iran’s Counter-Narrative

Iran has pursued a different approach to the information war. Rather than attempting to convince international audiences that it has militarily defeated the United States, Tehran has sought to redefine the meaning of victory. Its messaging emphasizes resistance, sovereignty, national identity, survival, and historical grievances. Iranian creators have used satire, animation, memes, and references to previous US military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan to connect the current conflict with broader historical experiences.

One prominent example is the emergence of Lego-style, AI-generated videos, referred to in the source as the “Lego War.” These videos use humor and simplified visual storytelling to challenge American claims and exploit political divisions within the United States. Some content has been shared through Iranian diplomatic accounts, including a video portraying President Trump as dreaming that he had defeated Iran.

The strategy reflects an adaptation to contemporary internet culture. Rather than relying exclusively on conventional political speeches or official statements, Iranian messaging uses formats that are designed for social-media audiences and can be rapidly circulated across digital platforms. 

Social Media, AI and Emotional Messaging

Iranian digital messaging has extended beyond the “Lego War.” Official Iranian accounts have circulated AI-generated videos and memes targeting US political controversies and personalities. The material has portrayed Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and divisions within the Pentagon through caricature, satire, and music. PBS NewsHour reported that AI-generated memes and satire were being used to mock President Trump and influence perceptions of the conflict.

Iran has simultaneously attempted to transform the conflict from a confrontation involving the Iranian regime into a broader narrative of national survival. Its messaging portrays the war as an attack on Iranian sovereignty and national identity. Civilian suffering, national mourning, destruction caused by US and Israeli strikes, and images of resistance are incorporated to generate emotional engagement with the Iranian narrative.

This approach allows Iran to compete in the information domain without having to establish conventional military superiority. The narrative instead focuses on the ability to withstand pressure and continue resisting.

Competing Concepts of Victory

The contrast between the two approaches is significant. Washington’s communication emphasizes capability: advanced aircraft, precision weapons, military technology, strikes, and destruction of targets. Iran’s communication emphasizes meaning: resistance, sovereignty, national identity, historical grievance, and survival. The American narrative demonstrates what US military power can destroy, while the Iranian narrative seeks to explain why Iran has not been defeated.

This difference illustrates that victory in contemporary warfare has both physical and informational dimensions. Military operations can determine the material balance, but competing narratives influence how those operations are interpreted by domestic and international audiences.