The Politics of Narrative

 

Media, Misinformation and the Reality of the US–Iran Conflict

I want to begin with a confession. In the late 1980s, I worked for The Sun. It is difficult to convey today what that experience was like, but in some respects, Donald Trump may understand it better than most. At the time, it often felt as though every other part of the mainstream media not only disagreed with us, but actively despised us. Stories were misrepresented, motives were questioned, and narratives were constructed that bore only a partial relationship to reality.

That is not to claim innocence. The Sun, like every newspaper, had its failings, most notably its appalling coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, for which the backlash, particularly in Liverpool, was entirely justified. I lived through the backlash.  But the broader point remains: we were not uniquely flawed. What set us apart was perspective. And it was that perspective which drew disproportionate hostility.

Looking at the current US-Iran situation, I am struck by a similar dynamic. It increasingly feels as though much of the Western media, outside of the United States and Israel, has settled into a posture not simply of critique, but of reflexive opposition. In doing so, it often appears willing to accept, amplify, and circulate narratives that collapse under even modest scrutiny.

A Story That Never Happened

A week or two ago, the world was told that US–Iran peace talks were about to begin in Pakistan. It sounded plausible. It was detailed. It was widely reported. It was also false. 
 

It increasingly feels as though much of the Western media, outside of the United States and Israel, has settled into a posture not simply of critique, but of reflexive opposition. 

The entire story appears to have originated from a WhatsApp message circulating in Pakistani military circles. Yet within hours, major outlets were repeating it as fact, often word for word. There were no talks. No delegations en route. No negotiations to cancel. And yet, headlines quickly shifted to: Trump scraps talks; Peace hopes fade. This is not just sloppy journalism. It is narrative-building detached from reality.

The Media’s Reflex

There is a pattern here. When it comes to Donald Trump, and by extension, US policy toward Iran, much of the Western media seems less interested in what is happening and more interested in how it can be framed. If talks exist, he is failing. If talks don’t exist, he has cancelled them. Either way, the conclusion is pre-loaded.

I’ve seen this before. At The Sun, we were often on the receiving end of the same phenomenon. You were not just disagreed with, you were interpreted, filtered, and reshaped into something easier to attack. That is now happening on a geopolitical scale.

Iran’s Game: Confuse, Delay, Survive

But the media is only half the story. Iran knows exactly what it is doing. Call it mirage diplomacy, a strategy of: -

1. Floating negotiations that aren’t real.
2. Leaking contradictory positions.
3. Using multiple intermediaries to muddy the waters.

The (Iranian) regime cannot afford to fully concede, and the US, under Trump, appears unwilling to accept anything less than decisive terms.

The aim is simple: buy time and avoid commitment. And it works, because confusion paralyses response. Right now, analysts are drowning in conflicting reports about talks, threats, concessions, and red lines. That’s not a failure of information. It’s the result of too much of it, most of it unreliable.

Two Messages, One Regime

Iran is effectively speaking in two voices: -

1. Publicly: defiance, strength, resistance.
2. Privately: negotiation, manoeuvre, survival.

It wants relief without surrender, concessions without collapse. But there’s a problem. The regime cannot afford to fully concede, and the US, under Trump, appears unwilling to accept anything less than decisive terms. That’s not a foundation for diplomacy; it’s a stalemate.

Who’s Actually in Charge?

Then there’s the question nobody can answer with confidence: who is running Iran right now? Conflicting signals from officials, mixed messaging, and even bizarre public imagery hinting at leadership uncertainty all point to something deeper– instability, or at least opacity, at the top.
 

These are not the actions of parties preparing for dialogue. They are the actions of actors preparing for escalation.

Trump’s remark that ‘nobody knows who is in charge’ may sound like rhetoric. It may also be uncomfortably close to the truth.

Meanwhile, the war edges closer. While the media talks about peace, the signals on the ground say something else.  Iranian officials are openly threatening massive missile strikes.  The US is pulling personnel out of the region. These are not the actions of parties preparing for dialogue. They are the actions of actors preparing for escalation.

The Reality Behind the Headlines

Strip away the noise, and the situation looks like this: -

1. There are no meaningful negotiations underway.
2. There is no imminent diplomatic breakthrough.
3. There is significant internal uncertainty within Iran.
4. And both sides are positioning for what comes next.

What we are being sold, instead, is a story, of talks, setbacks, and missed opportunities – all of which exists largely in the imagination of the media cycle.

Final Thought

The real danger here isn’t just conflict, but confusion. When false stories are repeated often enough, they begin to shape policy, perception and public expectation. And when that happens, reality struggles to catch up. Right now, the US-Iran conflict is not defined by diplomacy, but by distortion. And until we learn to separate the two, we will continue to misunderstand both the risks, and the reality, of what comes next.