Who Controls Narrative, Controls War

An earlier Hebrew version of this article was originally published on Walla News. The present version has been expanded and revised by the author.

Wars today are not only fought on the ground – but narrated in real-time to billions. And those who lose control of the story, often lose everything else too.

Israel’s recent confrontation with Iran marked a strategic turning point. Within hours, 200 Israeli aircraft struck strategic targets deep in Iranian territory — including nuclear production sites and IRGC command centers. But the real achievement wasn’t just operational. Israel spoke clearly: Iran’s nuclear program is an existential threat. We had no choice. The world, for once, understood.

In just a few days, Israel displayed two opposing faces: bold and assertive against Iran, hesitant and reactive in Gaza. The contrast wasn’t in military capability or intent — it was in communication, messaging, and strategic narrative management.

Contrast that with the Gaza front. Since the horrors of October 7, 2023, Israel has struggled to maintain moral clarity in the eyes of the international community. Despite the justified war against Hamas – a terror proxy of Iran – the story became blurred. Hamas is not a local phenomenon. It is Iran’s southern arm – the Gaza front in the same war. 

The story Israel needed to tell was not that it faces improvised rockets — but that a sovereign nation has been taken hostage by a terror arm of the Iranian regime. That fighting Hamas is not a punitive campaign, but part of a broader strategic confrontation against Tehran. This war was not just about Gaza — it was about resisting a regional axis of destabilization.

Language shaped this contrast dramatically. During the Iran strikes, CNN’s headlines declared ‘Israel strikes Iranian nuclear sites and IRGC command centers in unprecedented attack,’ adopting Israel’s framing of an existential threat. Conversely, Gaza’s narrative swiftly deteriorated. The BBC, facing criticism even from the British government, avoided calling Hamas “terrorists,” opting instead for the neutral “militants,” while Guardian op-eds condemned Israel’s actions as ‘an uncontainable revenge bordering on genocide.’ Subtle editorial choices profoundly reshaped global perceptions.

Yet international media largely ignored Gaza’s broader strategic context, fixating on humanitarian tragedy, while immediately framing Iran as a geopolitical flashpoint involving the US, Russia, and China—dramatically enhancing its urgency and legitimacy.

This wasn’t just editorial nuance – it marked a breakdown in Israel’s moral positioning. Mixed messaging, political hesitation, and fear of global opinion replaced a decisive explanation.

The result was a swift collapse in international legitimacy. Media outlets initially covering Hamas’s atrocities soon questioned Israel’s restraint, reframing it from victim to aggressor trapped in a morally ambiguous war, accused even of ‘indiscriminate aggression’ and ‘genocide.’ By contrast, Iran’s confrontation maintained moral clarity as existential defense, deeply influencing global empathy.

The disparity in spokesperson visibility made it worse. During the Iran campaign, Israeli officials – from air force veterans to national security experts – were everywhere, articulating Israel’s objectives with confidence.

Israel’s leadership was willing to say hard truths about Iran. But in Gaza, it hesitated. It avoided acknowledging the brutal, long-term nature of the conflict and tried to square an impossible circle: to defeat Hamas without admitting that doing so comes at a heavy, prolonged cost. That vacuum of clarity was inevitably filled by others.

The timeline of media coverage underscores the difference. Gaza was a long, drawn-out narrative that began with sympathy for Israeli victims but eroded under the weight of civilian casualties and unclear objectives. But the Iran strikes — swift, surgical, and framed as preemptive — immediately shifted headlines worldwide. Within hours, leading networks like CNN, BBC, and Le Monde moved their focus from Gaza to Tehran.

The prolonged and repetitive coverage of Gaza gradually numbed global audiences, diluting initial sympathy amid an endless stream of civilian casualties. By contrast, the sudden, intense eruption of the Iran crisis immediately seized worldwide attention, reshaping the narrative overnight.

The truth Israel feared to say out loud: Gaza cannot be solved cleanly or quickly.

The world doesn’t respond to silence. It responds to coherence – and punishes contradiction. Gaza, as presented, was a contradiction in motion: a justified war narrated in a hesitant, self-censoring voice. Iran, by contrast, was a war of necessity told with clarity.

Media polarization intensified this divide: conservative outlets consistently endorsed Israel’s existential threat narrative, while liberal media grew critical of Gaza operations, eventually questioning even the timing of strikes on Iran—further fragmenting global perceptions.

Wars are fought in tunnels and skies, but also in headlines and newsrooms. And sometimes, the war of words determines how the war on the ground is judged.

This is not just a lesson in communication or crisis management. It’s a lesson in leadership: to face uncomfortable truths, and to speak them — first to ourselves, then to the world.

Against Iran, Israel spoke – and the world understood.

In Gaza, it hesitated – and others rushed to speak in its place.

In the next war, having the courage to speak clearly, consistently, and unapologetically—first to ourselves, then to the world—will decide not only how we are perceived, but whether we ultimately prevail.