Propaganda has been an essential component of warfare since time immemorial. Before any conflict begins, the populace, those whose precious lives are at stake, are fed a rich diet of persuasive messaging so they'll sacrifice themselves when the time comes. The constant repetition programmes us to internalise the fundamental themes—Us against Them; Good versus Evil; Victory shall be Ours; War is Hell, but we have No Alternative. Repetition embeds the required narrative in our minds to ensure a majority of citizens lines up against The Enemy rather than refusing to enlist—or worse still, turning on our own leaders for the self-serving monsters they often are.

But as you may have noticed, the Iran-Israel-United States war we have just witnessed had virtually none of that essential preparation. Israel carried out a shocking surprise attack on Iran, while its superpower ally participated in a mendacious diplomatic process ostensibly to avoid the very war it helped start. However, the propaganda machines have been working overtime since Israel made its move on 13 June. 

If you were around in 2002-03 for the build-up to George W. Bush and Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq, you'll know how propaganda is meant to be done. Americans, still wounded after the worst terrorist atrocity in their history, were sold the lie that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaeda and participated in 9/11. Britons were persuaded Iraq was poised to attack us with weapons of mass destruction—even though its WMD programmes had long been discontinued, as weapons inspectors and our own intelligence services knew well. These falsehoods were dutifully peddled by media outlets, spiced up with additional tales of the brutality of Iraq's ruling elite, the oppression of women and minorities, etc. I was working for the BBC at the time and only a few of us were inclined towards scepticism about the relentless march to war. Most journalists fell into line—as they are doing again today, regrettably.  

Other wars in the service of American imperial ambitions have followed similar propaganda playbooks. Post-Cold War military interventions in Syria, Libya, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Somalia all witnessed concerted narrative build-ups instigated in government briefings and statements, with the eager support of loyal or "impartial" media outlets. Usually this involved a last deadline to provide a veneer of legitimacy before the dogs of war were let slip, for example when President Bush gave Saddam and his sons "48 hours" to leave Iraq or their refusal would "result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing".

Israel's sneak decapitation and sabotage operation against Iran showed us how much the playbook has changed in the Trump-Netanyahu era. Instead of pre-war propaganda to prepare the populace for yet another "unavoidable" conflict, narratives were fabricated of a possible diplomatic resolution—precisely so Iran would be caught unawares.

Tel Aviv and Washington's clear intention was to deliver such a blow to the off-guard Islamic revolutionary leadership and top military echelon that their rule would crumble. Bombing Iran's nuclear energy programme and assassinating scientists, under the pretext that weaponization was imminent, was just a cover. The real purpose was to send Israel's last remaining enemy state into the same chaotic spiral of collapse as Saddam's Iraq, Qaddafi's Libya and most recently Assad's Syria. But Iran did not collapse—it recovered from the initial shock and, over 12 unprecedented days, was able to exact a heavy toll from its Israeli assailants.

As the ensuing war stubbornly refused to follow the Israeli/US script, you could see the propaganda engines malfunctioning in real time. Iranian missiles pummelled Israel like never before. Social media audiences incensed by the Killing Fields of Gaza celebrated the comeuppance experienced by a nation that had been ruthlessly bombing its Arab neighbours for a year-and-a-half. However, the mainstream media were unusually taciturn about the widespread destruction of Israel's prized military, scientific and economic assets. Where was the usual phalanx of analysts and retired generals to tell mainstream news audiences that Israel's expensive and much-admired anti-missile air defence systems were failing to intercept Iran's ballistic and hypersonic arsenal? Who was there to point out how this time it looked very much like Israel had bitten off more than it could chew? Only recalcitrant independent news outlets were delivering that message to their users. The mainstream media left their audiences in the dark.

Meanwhile, anything showcasing Israel's guile and military prowess was prominently and faithfully reported by mainstream media with little scrutiny. Israel had taken control of Iranian airspace and destroyed half of its missile launch capability, we were told within hours of its initial unprovoked attack. But it's hard to believe this when we saw no evidence of Israeli jets operating over Tehran, as one sees over Lebanon or Syria where they do have air dominance. And how can you say confidently you have put half of something out of action if you do not know its exact size in the first place? It makes no sense, but still it gets repeated confidently to mainstream media audiences because it's been asserted by Israel and its allies. Likewise, the frequent attacks on civilian targets in Iran were hardly ever acknowledged. (And don't forget, that includes Iran's nuclear energy programme, which has been authorised as civilian by none other than the International Atomic Energy Agency.)

I'm not saying one side has a monopoly on truth or accuracy. Misinformation emerges from all quarters, whether on social media or the mainstream news. We spend our lives deluged in propaganda, especially in wartime, so we would be well advised not to take anything we hear at face value. Just because something is repeated over and over again, it doesn't make it true. On the contrary, it just means someone, somewhere WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE that it's true. This is particularly pertinent when it comes to what is said by Israeli political or military sources, "the most moral army in the world" as we are often told. Their credibility is now in tatters having been persistently caught out telling lies to mitigate and exonerate their daily transgressions—but our mainstream media will never remind you of this.

The fog of war has seldom been foggier than today, amid multiple wars that Israel has been waging since October 2023. The abandonment of existing norms concerning international humanitarian law, however imperfectly these may have been observed in the past, has necessitated a massive propaganda effort to try to prevent the complete collapse of Israel's reputation and the souring of its ties with other friendly countries. Even in the US, there are signs opinion may be turning marginally against Israel, although it still retains formidable support across the spectrum. Its acolytes will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from earning the reputation it deserves. This being the case, we should be especially aware how propaganda is deployed to polish Israel's reputation and obfuscate its crimes.

We can see one example of this taking shape in real time. Israeli propagandists often promote the distorted claim that all Israel's wars dating back to 1948 were defensive in nature, having been started by its enemies. This is demonstrably false and has been comprehensively debunked in historical analysis, including by records from Israel's own government archives; yet it persists as a handy talking point whenever the need arises to assert the peace-loving and genial nature of the Israeli state and its much-maligned Jewish inhabitants.

So be warned: The latest war which we have all just witnessed in twenty-twenty detail being started by Israel on a false premise, that Iran was building a nuke, is already being reframed in the media to conceal its role as aggressor. And I am not talking just about Israeli spokespeople and their advocates in the pro-Zionist community around the world. I am talking about supposedly impartial sources.

The BBC produced nearly 100 articles between 14 and 24 June about the Iran-Israel war. I went through them all to see how the start of the war was presented each time. Any independent analysis would argue it was an act of aggression by one UN member, Israel, against another in clear violation of the UN Charter. But 51 articles, more than half, either failed to mention how it started or disguised the true state of affairs, providing contextual information like "Israel and Iran have exchanged deadly strikes since Friday" or "After almost a week of daily attacks from both sides". In one particularly ridiculous example, a correspondent wrote "the years' long face-off between Israel and Iran … has exploded into a deadly and direct phase this week". All to avoid saying the basic truth that "Israel attacked Iran".

When the instigator of the conflict is identified, that's where the next level of propaganda kicks in. With hardly a single exception the credulous—I'm sorry to use the word—BBC writers attributed the unprovoked assault to Israel's fear of Iranian nuclear weapons development. As if the state that is committing genocide in Gaza, that still boasts about its pager terrorism in Lebanon, that has assassinated Palestinians and now Iranians involved in US-mediated negotiations, that tried to blackmail Iranian generals by threatening their children and spouses, should always be taken at its word and its integrity believed! Even if it were true that the only concern was about Iran violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty and arming itself with nuclear weapons, where does that leave Israel that never signed the NPT and stands as the only nuclear-armed country in the region, that has repeatedly attacked Arab countries far and wide, from Tunisia to Iraq?

Imagine how different the News in the west would look if it were not suffused by the chauvinistic mindset that infects almost every major western news outlet. Fortunately, in recent decades we've seen the emergence of digital platforms with the invaluable contribution of citizen journalists and independent researchers who are steadily gaining a greater share of the market among young and old alike. This is the future of news, while the mainstream providers make themselves increasingly irrelevant by claiming impartiality while peddling a daily diet of uninterrupted propaganda.