08/04/2026

WEDNESDAY | APR 8, 2026

/thesuntelegram FOLLOW / Malaysian Paper

ON TELEGRAM m RAM

10

Western media complicity in Iran War S INCE the onset of “Operation Fury”, Western media – even those claiming liberal or progressive labels – have largely retreated into 1979. Since then, we see this through: 0 biased framing: US and Israeli actions are consistently labeled as “preemptive” or “defensive” while any Iranian response is dismissed as a “provocation” by an “authoritarian regime”. A N O T H E R T A K E

a protective crouch. Despite strikes hitting schools, hospitals and utilities on a daily basis, there is a striking absence of reporting that dare label these actions as potential war crimes. Rhetoric of destruction The deafening silence regarding these illegalities should have shattered on April 1. In a global address, President Donald Trump threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age”, explicitly stating: “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants.” Under international law, targeting such civilian infrastructure is strictly prohibited, yet the media continues to treat these threats as standard diplomacy rather than a prelude to war criminality. has continuously pronounced that they are about honest, independent and progressive journalism, chasing the truth and holding the powerful to account. This implies honest journalism, fact checking, providing context to ensure accountability, the maintenance of editorial independence and a focus in their international coverage on exposing issues so that the cause of justice – in this case, international justice – is served. This failure to hold power to account in Iran and in all the recent wars waged by the US and Israel is not accidental; it is systemic. While progressive outlets claim to chase the truth, in practice, they often function as a “handmaiden” or even a weapon for Western forces and interests. What we see in Western media reporting on the Iran war is not just the absence of their lofty principles but much worse. Even before the war began, there was a consistent pattern of anti Iran-regime-framing by Western media after the establishment of the Islamic government of Ayatollah Khomeini in Weapon of war Western progressive media

0 omission and regurgitation: reports often rely solely on Western official sources while silencing counter narratives. 0 normalised violence: because of the long-standing “shadow war”, the media treats open warfare as a mere escalation of the status quo rather than a humanitarian crisis. Strategy over humanity The human cost is frequently buried under “geopolitical chess” analysis. When the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ Elementary School in Minab was bombed, media reports were quick to emphasise the proximity of “military targets”. This framing sanitises the event, transforming a potential war crime into an “accidental byproduct” of a legitimate operation. Coverage prioritises the status of the Strait of Hormuz or the destruction of bridges over the “ecocide” and civilian displacement occurring on the ground. Meanwhile, Trump’s “finish the job” rhetoric is granted inordinate space. Framed as a moral necessity for victory, it is repeated ad infinitum and given credibility in the belief that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. More worrying is the apparent endorsement by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who stated during a recent press briefing that the US military would be bound by “no stupid rules of engagement”, aimed at enabling troops to “intimidate, demoralise, hunt and kill the enemies of our country”. He had earlier stated that the Department of War would conduct operations with “maximum lethality”, focusing on “unleashing overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy” and noted during his January 2025 nomination hearing that the application of Geneva Conventions must be considered against the “asymmetric, non-conventional environment” of modern warfare.

B

Y

E

L

E

I

H

M

G

T

K

E

C

“What we are seeing in Western media reporting on Iran is the effort to create a news environment where the worst allegations, however much they are backed by evidence, about the US and Israel war conduct and actions are systematically downplayed or ignored.

Coverage prioritises the status of the Strait of Hormuz or the destruction of bridges over the ecocide and civilian displacement occuring o the ground. – REUTERSPIC

Historical cycle What we are seeing in Western media reporting on Iran is the effort to create a news environment where the worst allegations, however much they are backed by evidence, about the US and Israel war conduct and actions are systematically downplayed or ignored. This is a continuation of a long-term historical pattern where Orientalist stereotypes dehumanise non-Western populations to justify violence. Until the global news system is realigned to be truly independent of geopolitical and economic pressures, the Western media will continue to work as a tool to legitimise overwhelming state violence. For now, the question is whether the Western media is “compliant” or an “accessory” to the military actions in Iran. Two perspectives in international law and political science are possible: 0 Sociological perspective: “Manufacturing Consent” This sees the Western media functioning as a tool for “manufacturing consent”. In this view, media outlets are not necessarily “ordered” to support a war but they do so through systemic filters. 0 Legal perspective: “Accessory to war crimes”

In international law, being an “accessory” has a technical definition. To be legally liable for war crimes, an entity must meet two criteria: Provide practical assistance, encouragement or moral support that has a substantial effect on the commission of the crime; and Have the intent to facilitate the crime or knowing that their actions will assist in its commission. Following the escalations on Feb 28, international bodies like the UN Human Rights Office have begun looking into the “production and dissemination of narratives” that may justify international crimes. In the case of Iran, critics see Western coverage as a “weapon of war” that provides the political cover necessary for military operations to continue without public revolt. While the legal bar for being an accessory to war crimes remains high and has rarely been applied to mainstream journalists and journalism in modern history, Western media coverage should be an important test. Lim Teck Ghee’s Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com