While many experts and commentators focus on the military and political dimensions of the war against Iran, the narrative dimension may prove even more consequential. Wars are not fought only with missiles, intelligence and air power. They are also fought through language, imagery and political framing. The way a war is narrated shapes how it is justified, how it is normalized and, most importantly, how far it is allowed to travel.
Here’s precisely what is being seen in the U.S.-Israeli framing of the war against Iran.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s remark, “Any time I seek it to end, it will end,” together with his demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” captures the tone from Washington.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s language does the same from the Israeli side. He has spoken of “two existential threats,” described the conflict as a struggle between “the children of light and the children of darkness,” and cast Israel’s war in the language of civilization versus barbarism.
The White House presented the campaign under the slogan “Peace Through Strength” to “Crush Iranian Regime, End Nuclear Threat.” At the same time, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described Tehran as a “death cult” driven by “prophetic Islamist delusions.”
These remarks reflect a broader institutional discourse repeated across the White House, the Pentagon, the Israeli political and diplomatic establishment, and the media in both countries.
That discourse does not present Iran as a strategic rival, but as something beyond normal politics: a uniquely dangerous, irrational and morally illegitimate actor. Once that framing takes hold, domination begins to sound like order, escalation begins to sound like necessity, and war begins to look like the only reasonable response.
Creating decent vs. Evil
The first step in this narrative strategy is to remove Iran from the realm of ordinary statecraft. Official U.S. Language portrays Iran as the main source of disorder itself.
White House rhetoric speaks of an “imminent nuclear threat” after “47 years of Iranian aggression.” Israeli official statements describe the moment as the “11th hour” and Iran as an “existential and imminent threat.”
This changes the terms of debate. Iran is no longer treated as a state that can be deterred, negotiated with or contained, but as an exceptional threat that justifies exceptional measures. The repetition of this language gives it power.
A second element of this discourse is the distinction U.S. And Israeli officials constantly make between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people. The White House says the regime spends its resources on missiles and nuclear programs while “its infrastructure and people struggle” and that it “brutally represses its own people.” Israeli rhetoric follows the same line, insisting that the war is against the regime, not the nation.
But this distinction is not as innocent as it seems. It serves a political purpose: demonizing the regime to justify war, while humanizing the people to moralize it. The regime is portrayed as fanatical, repressive and irredeemable, while the people are portrayed as suffering and waiting for deliverance. This does not restore Iranian agency, but manages it.
Religionizing war
This becomes clearer when considering regime change. As Netanyahu frames it, Israel is trying to create favorable conditions for the collapse of the Iranian government, even while insisting that any actual overthrow would have to approach “from the inside.” Washington and Tel Aviv speak as if Iran’s future belongs to the Iranian people, while admitting that military violence is being used to shape that future.
The war is also being framed in a way that gives it a religious and apocalyptic charge. Netanyahu’s language has gone beyond conventional security rhetoric, referencing light and darkness, good and evil, and civilization against barbarism.
Reuters reported that the operation’s name, “Rising Lion,” was drawn from a biblical verse and reinforced by the note Netanyahu placed at the Western Wall before the strikes. In a March 12 press conference, Netanyahu is quoted as saying Israel will “reach the kingdom” and “make it to the Messiah’s return.” The war is being narrated in a redemptive and providential register.
That matters because sacralized wars are harder to limit.
Depicting Iran as targetable
A third major element of the narrative is spatial. Iran is portrayed as a space of concealment, secrecy and buried danger. Official U.S. And Israeli language repeatedly emphasize hidden facilities, underground sites, and mountain-protected programs. Geography itself becomes suspicious.
American military rhetoric casts U.S. Power as the force that sees, reaches and controls. What is hidden below is framed as deceit, what comes from above is framed as visibility and truth. Sovereignty is subtly redefined, and Iran is treated as a targetable space.
Iran is depicted as the center of instability radiating disorder across the region. The U.S. And Israel present themselves as managers of a threatened security architecture.
Gamification of war
Even the visual language of the war follows this pattern. The official White House social media videos mixed real Iran-war footage with video game imagery, action heroes, sports clips and slogans such as “JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY,” while officials said they would continue showing Iranian missiles and facilities being destroyed “in real time.”
This shows how war is not only narrated but also aestheticized. In speeches, the regime is demonized and the people are paternalized. In images, both disappear into a flat world of explosions and spectacle. Iran is reduced to a target environment.
The deeper issue is the convergence of institutions around the same narrative structure. Iran is framed as exceptional evil, the regime is separated from the people, war is lifted into a civilizational register, and Iranian territory is turned into legitimate target space.
What emerges is a full political framing strategy that decides in advance whose violence will be understood as order and whose very existence will be understood as a threat.
For that reason, the narrative dimension of this war may prove more dangerous than its military dimension alone. Military campaigns end. Narratives, once normalized, can endure much longer. And when they do, they make the next war easier to justify.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central argument presented regarding the U.S.-Israeli framing of the war?
The central argument is that the U.S. And Israel are framing the war against Iran not simply as a strategic conflict, but as a moral and civilizational struggle, portraying Iran as an exceptional evil and justifying domination as order.
How are the Iranian people portrayed in the official discourse?
The Iranian people are portrayed as suffering and passive, waiting for deliverance, while the regime is demonized as fanatical and repressive. This distinction is used to justify war while attempting to moralize it.
What is the significance of the spatial framing of Iran?
Iran is portrayed as a space of concealment and buried danger, with its geography presented as suspicious. This framing redefines sovereignty and presents Iran as a targetable space whose boundaries can be overridden in the name of security.
How might the normalization of this narrative impact future conflicts and international relations?
