Ever since Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran (according to foreign reports) and Fuad Shukr in Beirut, it seems the world has been anxiously awaiting Iran’s response.
But regardless of what may finally happen on the battlefield, we Israelis should long ago have learned a certain lesson that our enemies already understand thoroughly: The way the discourse is framed and the narrative is shaped can be just as crucial as the facts on the ground—if not more so.
In fact, the discourse over the past two weeks—whether from Israeli or foreign commentators, Arab media, the pro-Iranian sphere, or even within the Iranian establishment—has centered on how the Iranian regime and Hezbollah might respond to Israel’s actions. In other words, the discourse is framed as follows: Israel has acted, and now it is up to Iran and Hezbollah to respond. In other words, the implication—whether stated outright or subtly suggested—is that if Israel hadn’t taken its actions, we wouldn’t be in the current situation.
In the English-language press outside Israel, the vocabulary is even more blunt. Iran is not simply expected to “respond” but to “retaliate.”
We Israelis don’t always realize when our rhetoric fuels a hostile narrative, unwittingly playing into the enemy’s hands. In the picture being painted for the world, Israel will be held responsible for any escalation, as everything that follows will be seen as a reaction to Israel’s actions. Instead, our narrative should consistently highlight Iran’s culpability—guilt for the events of October 7, for attacks on Israel from Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, for terrorism originating in Judea and Samaria, and for assaults on American bases in Syria and Iraq. This also includes Iran’s responsibility for the destabilization of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which has disrupted maritime commerce and threatened America’s allies. And, of course, Iran bears responsibility for every incident in Gaza and for every additional day of war, with even greater guilt if the conflict escalates further.
Suppose the USSR had fielded proxies to shoot at US territory, citizens, and facilities during the Cold War. Would the US have fought back only against the proxies and not against the USSR itself? All Israel did was target the head of the serpent — the country that is financing, instigating, and managing the warfare in the Middle East overall and especially against Israel. Taking action is not only Israel’s right but, as should be emphasized, its duty. In practice, addressing only the symptoms of a conflict may alleviate them to some extent but will not cure the underlying disease.
For that reason, the narrative should be that Israel is not waiting for Iran’s response but for its next move. Will Iran choose to escalate and expose itself as a direct target, or will it continue to hide behind its proxies? Until the public discourse changes and unequivocally demands that Iran stop the aggression, the goal will not be reached.
The issue of framing extends beyond this specific event. Various voices are attempting to depict the current conflict as a limited war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, deliberately omitting the broader context of a war being waged by Iran and its network of proxies against Israel and Western interests in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, those attempts at framing have been rather successful so far and seem to have determined the dominant narrative in extensive sectors of public discourse in the Arab world and the Western world alike. The Palestinians are naturally invested in maintaining the misleading narrative that portrays Israel as the Goliath and themselves as the David—a small, oppressed nation demonstrating courage and determination in resisting a powerful state and its sophisticated military.
Iran and its proxies are invested in the success of the Palestinian narrative not only because it weakens and delegitimizes Israel on the international stage, but also because it allows Iran to evade responsibility for its own actions.
The Americans and their Western allies hesitate to blame Iran, likely because doing so would force them to explain to their own citizens what actions they plan to take or why their policies allowed Iran to reach such a position in the first place. Thus, for example, we hardly hear from the American media about the militias attacking American bases in Syria and Iraq, or about attacks by the Houthis.
But it’s not just the outside world that we need to be cautious about misleading with our language. Israel’s own citizens are also not experts in Middle Eastern geopolitics, Western interests, or the agendas of radical Islam.
Whatever we fail to teach our children, they may learn from other sources. We must continuously safeguard the narrative and facts in public discourse. In these tense times, as the Israeli public anxiously awaits the potential expansion of the war, we must be careful not to miscommunicate in a way that reinforces the enemy’s narrative, both abroad and at home.
War with Iran is already under way, and so of course is war with Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the militias in Syria and Iraq. The question now is not whether war will break out in the north, but whether Iran has decided to expand, together with its proxies, this already blazing war for which it is wholly responsible.
“This article was originally published in ynetnews.”
