Dr. Ahmed Mostafa ✍️
Western and Zionist media and their allies will always diminish the achievements of Iran and Hezbollah whatsoever in the ongoing discourse surrounding global events and political landscapes, one prevailing narrative often emerges: the tendency of Western and Zionist media, alongside their sympathizers, to undervalue or outright dismiss the achievements of Iran and Hezbollah. This perspective is not merely an assertion, but a sentiment echoed by followers and proponents of these entities, who perceive a constant bias and misinformation campaign orchestrated against them. Western and Zionist media outlets, influenced by their geopolitical interests and alliances, frequently curtail the coverage of Iran and Hezbollah’s successes in strategic, humanitarian, and technological domains. This depiction often reduces their narratives to mere adversaries, glossing over any positive contributions they may offer their respective regions and beyond.
Understanding this media portrayal requires delving into the historical and political contexts that drive these narratives. The Western and Zionist media, in their portrayal, often highlight actions and activities that align with the narrative of conflict and antagonism, rather than demonstrating a comprehensive, balanced view. This selective reporting paints Iran and Hezbollah in a predominantly negative light, emphasizing their role in regional tensions or conflicts rather than acknowledging breakthroughs in areas like healthcare, education, or technological advancements. For instance, in times of crisis, such as natural disasters or pandemics, these entities have been reported to provide significant aid and support, both internally and externally, although such contributions are often overshadowed or ignored by mainstream media.
Moreover, Hezbollah’s role in regional conflicts, particularly in Syria, has been a significant point of contention. While Western media frequently cites their involvement as destabilizing, their narrative often minimizes the impact of their interventions in protecting religious and ethnic minorities, irrespective of the broader implications of such actions. This one-sided perspective fails to capture the full spectrum of their activities, thereby depriving the global audience of a nuanced understanding.
Furthermore, Iran’s advancements in science and technology, such as the development of vaccines, satellite technology, and nuclear energy programs, receive scant attention, with the primary focus remaining on the potential threat these advancements pose according to Western and Zionist narratives.
This deficit in balanced coverage not only skews public perception but also fuels an already tense geopolitical climate.
These media dynamics illustrate a larger issue of media bias and selective reporting, where the narratives of Iran and Hezbollah are consistently filtered through a lens that prioritizes the agendas of Western and Zionist powers. The implications of this bias are far-reaching, affecting diplomatic relations, global perceptions, and ultimately, the progression of peace and understanding in the region. To counteract this, a critical and informed audience, alongside unbiased media platforms, becomes increasingly crucial to ensure a comprehensive and just understanding of events.
Despite the harsh and painful retaliation from Iran anti Israel represented in 400 hypersonic ballistic missiles that were monitored by global and regional media, the US State Secretary and Media started to propagate that they downed all the missiles in a recent global standoff, the geopolitical landscape witnessed an intense confrontation between Israel and Iran. Yesterday, Iran launched a significant retaliation effort to retaliate the assassination of Mr. Ismail Haniyeh the Former head of Hamas’s political bureau, and Syed Hassan Nasrallah the Secretary General of Hezbollah, deploying 400 hypersonic ballistic missiles in a show of force that sent shockwaves through international corridors. This aggressive move wasn’t just a display of military capability; it shook the foundations of regional stability. The event, closely monitored by global media, portrayed the scale of Iran’s military advancement and its willingness to use such weaponry.
However, amidst the chaos and the threat of escalation, the US State Secretary and the media embarked on a different narrative. They started to propagate that the United States, through its advanced defense systems and military prowess, successfully intercepted and downed every single missile fired by Iran. This claim was not just a strategic move to de-escalate tensions but also a crucial PR exercise. The assertion that all incoming missiles were neutralized aimed at preserving the US’s reputation as a dominant force in defense technology and maintaining its global market share in the lucrative weapons industry. The messaging was clear: the United States, despite facing one of the most sophisticated and devastating missile barrages, successfully defended its ally, Israel, and in doing so, showcased the superiority of its military assets.
This narrative, whether fully substantiated or not, served multiple purposes. It was designed to reassure allies, deter potential adversaries, and most importantly, uphold the US’s position as the global leader in arms production and sales. In an era where geopolitical dynamics are rapidly evolving and the demand for sophisticated defense systems is on the rise, the trust and confidence of allies and potential buyers in the effectiveness of US weapons are paramount. The claim of successfully intercepting 400 hypersonic ballistic missiles was not just about salvaging face; it was a strategic move in a much larger game of international relations and global arms trade.
Iran has credibility as well as Hezbollah in their news because they cannot circulate anything without a full evidence and July 2006 war as well as the attack on Ain AlAssad Base in Iraq proving that, also they are withdrawing from killing civilians in their conflicts Iran and Hezbollah, though often viewed through the lens of controversy by their detractors, have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to evidentiary rigor in their news dissemination. This credibility is not simply a claim but is supported by actions taken during times of conflict and crisis. The July 2006 war involving Hezbollah showcased their dedication to validating information before its release, ensuring that the narrative was grounded in fact and reality. This approach highlights not only their respect for the truth but also their strategic acumen in maintaining credibility amidst complex geopolitical dynamics.
Furthermore, the attack on Ain Al-Asad Base in Iraq is another testament to this principle. The meticulous planning and execution of such operations, which were later confirmed by a wealth of evidence, underscored a commitment to substantiation that is often lacking in the fog of war. By ensuring that their actions are backed by evidence, Iran and Hezbollah have established a track record that is harder to dismiss as baseless aggression.
Importantly, these entities have also displayed a policy shift towards minimizing civilian casualties in their conflicts. In the face of international criticism and moral scrutiny, they have shown a willingness to adapt their tactics to avoid harming innocent bystanders. This move, while not universally perfect, is a significant departure from past practices and reflects a growing understanding of the humanitarian consequences of armed conflict. Such steps not only bolster their public image but also contribute to building a more stable and just society where civilian lives are prioritized.
In essence, the credibility of Iran and Hezbollah in their news and actions is not accidental but a result of a concerted effort to be transparent, evidence-based, and mindful of civilian impact in conflict settings. This approach has not only bolstered their standing among supporters and sympathizers but also challenged the narratives of their opponents, who often paint them with a broad brush of hostility and recklessness. By adhering to these principles, they continue to redefine the discourse on conflict in the Middle East, emphasizing the role of evidence and ethics in military engagements.
The coming days after the end of the Gaza Israel or Lebanon Israel war will reveal the facts and the real estimate of gains and losses, and whatsoever the West and Israel can disguise the facts and the truth currently, days will undoubtedly expose it in the immediate aftermath of any conflict, the fog of war often obscures the true picture of gains and losses. This is particularly relevant in the case of the recent hostilities between Israel and either Gaza or Lebanon. Despite the preliminary narratives that emerge from both sides, especially from Israel and its Western allies, the real assessment of the situation will only be possible once the dust has settled.
In these coming days, the situation on the ground will speak volumes. The extent of destruction, the number of casualties, the displacement of civilians, and the immediate humanitarian needs will all become clearer. This raw data, combined with eyewitness accounts and independent evaluations, will serve as a crucial counterbalance to the versions of events pushed by political entities.
Whatever the West and Israel attempt to frame or disguise at the moment, reality has its own way of revealing the truth. Outward displays of military prowess or strategic victories can be compelling, but the true measure of success or failure in any conflict is multifaceted. It includes not just tactical outcomes but also the impact on human lives, the stability of the region, and the long-term consequences for peace and security.
Over the days to come, as the international community gains access and media restrictions ease, the world will have a clearer picture of the situation. The truth has a way of emerging, often against the odds. In the face of propaganda and political rhetoric, it is the undeniable evidence of what has occurred on the ground that will ultimately define the narrative of this conflict.
The coming days will be critical. They will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the conflict’s aftermath. It is during this time that the world can begin to grasp the full human cost of the hostilities and the long road to recovery that lies ahead for affected populations. The truth, though difficult and often painful, is essential for healing, accountability, and, ultimately, for preventing such conflicts from recurring in the future.
