For decades, Israel has enjoyed a staggering level of impunity for its violence in the Middle East, an indulgence no other state could dream of. Western governments that preach human rights have never granted such a blank check for brutality to anyone else. Anywhere else, even a minor provocation can draw overwhelming punishment. Yet Israel has spent the past 20 months carrying out what is widely seen as genocide in Gaza, with not only Western tolerance but also active diplomatic and military support.
Once again, the Western media has shown its true colors. Much of it has worked to normalize Israel’s violence, offering a textbook example of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s famous “Manufacturing Consent” theory. Coverage of Israel’s attack on Iran and the subsequent 12-day conflict revealed every element of media distortion: filtering news, biased framing, selective reporting, and silencing dissenting voices.
Israel did not even bother mounting a defense for launching the strikes.
Look at how Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, and the subsequent 12-day conflict, were reported. Israel did not even bother mounting a defense for launching the strikes. No problem: Western governments and media rushed to do it for them. American outlets like The New York Post and CNBC eagerly labeled Israel’s attacks “pre-emptive” and “defensive.” They were not alone. Germany’s Deutsche Welle, too, called them “defensive,” straining to justify them.
However, when it came to Iran’s response, the narrative flipped. Suddenly, Iran was not retaliating, it was threatening regional peace. Euronews dutifully quoted Israel’s ambassador to label Iran a threat to all of Europe.
Western media’s double standards were especially obvious in its use of language around threats. Israel told Iranian civilians they faced a “horrific fate” if they did not flee Tehran, an unambiguous threat to burn the city. Yet agencies like the Associated Press, CBC, and Newsweek downplayed it as a “warning.” Meanwhile, when Iran responded to U.S. threats of intervention with its own cautionary message, the same outlets called it a “threat,” designed to provoke. The Los Angeles Times described Iran as “threatening decisive retaliation,” while Time declared Iran’s Supreme Leader threatened “irreparable damage.” The New York Post went a step further, concocting the claim that Iran was preparing attacks on U.S. bases.
The pattern continued in reporting on the actual strikes. Israel’s attacks were consistently described as “targeted,” precise operations hitting legitimate military objectives. Iran’s strikes? Framed as indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The Associated Press called Israel’s strike on Iran’s Ministry of Defense a legitimate “target,” while France 24 justified attacks on nuclear sites as “targeted.” In New Zealand, state media took the prize for rhetorical excess, calling Iran the “snake’s head” and Israel the righteous force out to crush it. As soon as Iran responded, these same outlets suddenly forgot how to use the word “targeted.” Major players like Sky News and The Wall Street Journal reported Iran’s retaliation as random, reckless attacks, even though civilian casualties occurred on both sides. Israel’s military was consistently painted as professional and restrained; Iran’s was cast as a wanton killer of innocents.
The hypocrisy didn’t stop there. When Israel launched its initial, unprovoked attack on Iran, Western media called it “self-defense.” Iran’s retaliation, by contrast, was universally condemned as a dire threat to regional stability. European leaders openly supported Israel’s strikes while moralizing about Iran’s response. The absurdity is plain. Everyone knows Israel is the region’s only nuclear-armed state. Iran, by all accounts, does not have nuclear weapons. Yet Western coverage routinely paints Iran as the looming nuclear menace while Israel plays the victim.
The choice of words reveals the bias. Western media and politicians address Israel as a “government,” with the full legitimacy that implies. Iran, by contrast, is almost universally labeled a “regime,” a subtle but powerful way to delegitimize it in the public mind. The Economist, Foreign Policy, The Guardian, Time, all routinely use “Iranian regime” while treating Israel’s government with diplomatic respect. These are not small editorial choices. They shape how millions of readers see the world, manufacturing consent for policies that uphold Israeli impunity while demonizing Iran. In doing so, Western media outlets are not just failing their journalistic duty rather they are actively sacrificing truth on the altar of political convenience.
The writer is Controller News at 365 News and can be reached at [email protected]