During the first four days of the second war waged by the Israeli–American coalition against Iran, several extensive strikes were carried out against buildings of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), at times causing temporary and minor disruptions to its transmission. These attacks were not simply military actions against a physical structure; they signaled a focus on the domain of perception. If classical warfare was grounded in the capture of territory, contemporary warfare is built upon capturing the “interpretation of territory.” In this context, the media is not a peripheral tool, but part of the infrastructure of national power.
Media in Modern Theories of War
It must first be acknowledged that in contemporary conflicts, the media is no longer the “margin of war,” but part of the “structure of combat power.” From the perspective of agenda-setting theory, media outlets determine what people think about—even if they do not determine how they think. In wartime conditions, this function becomes even more critical: by highlighting successes, enemy casualties, or narratives of resistance, the media can shape public perception of the balance of power. Targeting the national broadcaster, therefore, represents an attempt to disrupt the process of shaping the mental agenda of society—a society whose psychological cohesion constitutes part of the country’s defensive capacity.
From the standpoint of framing theory, the issue is not merely which topic is selected, but how it is presented. In war, any event can be framed as an “aggressive attack” or as a “preemptive response.” If domestic media succeeds in constructing a legitimizing framework for national defense, the political and psychological costs of war for the aggressor increase. Silencing this voice is thus an effort to open space for competing frames within the global media landscape.
A deeper layer of the issue can be found in the “spiral of silence” theory. According to this theory, individuals tend to remain silent when they feel their views are in the minority. The national broadcaster, despite the criticisms directed at it, can in moments of crisis function as a “signal of the majority,” reinforcing a sense of collective solidarity. If that signal is cut off, feelings of isolation and uncertainty may spread. From the perspective of psychological warfare, this is precisely the fissure the attacker seeks to widen. The physical collapse of a media outlet is seen as a prelude to eroding national will and ultimately undermining the political system.
In military science, this transformation is understood within the concepts of “cognitive warfare” and “fifth-generation warfare.” In this framework, the primary objective is not to seize land, but to seize minds. Media infrastructure, alongside energy and communications networks, is regarded as one of the “vital nodes” of the system. Attacking it constitutes a form of systematic paralysis—akin to the “Five Rings” theory proposed by John Warden, which emphasizes focusing on centers of gravity such as leadership, communications, and political will. In this analysis, the national broadcaster serves as the connecting ring between political leadership and public opinion.
On the other hand, in the age of social media, narrative monopoly no longer belongs to a single outlet. Why, then, does attacking the official broadcaster still matter? The answer lies in the concept of “symbolic authority.” Regardless of public trust levels, the national broadcaster is internationally recognized as the country’s official voice. Silencing it sends a symbolic message outward: that the governing communication structure is vulnerable. Such a message can influence diplomatic calculations, financial markets, and even the morale of domestic forces.
The legal and ethical dimension must also be considered. In the law of armed conflict, the distinction between military and civilian targets is fundamental. If a media outlet is defined as an instrument of “war propaganda,” some theorists attempt to classify it as a legitimate target; however, this interpretation is highly contested. Attacking a media institution—even if justified on the grounds of its propaganda function—effectively expands the logic of “total war,” erasing the boundary between the front line and the rear.
Eliminating the Voice of Governance as a Key to Victory
Nonetheless, strategic analysis requires that the issue not be viewed solely through moral condemnation. The action can be understood as part of a strategy of “narrative superiority”—a strategy Israel and the United States have pursued in many recent conflicts: from dominating the global news cycle to leveraging digital platforms to shape public opinion. Within this model, any rival voice capable of presenting a different account of the battlefield is perceived as a threat to perceptual dominance.
Ultimately, targeting the national broadcaster should be understood within the framework of competition over “symbolic capital.” In soft power theory, legitimacy and image are components of national strength. The media is the instrument for producing and reproducing that image. When war escalates into a battle over meaning and interpretation, destroying the tools that produce meaning becomes a predictable act. Thus, the attack on the national broadcaster cannot be regarded merely as a military reaction; it must be analyzed as an attempt to break the bond between the official narrative and social cohesion, to create a vacuum in news authority, and to capture the perceptual battlefield. In today’s wars, bullets do not target bodies alone; they are fired at minds. Silencing a voice is part of a strategy to dominate silence.
The striking activity of Western media outlets and Persian-language networks operating abroad constitutes the other side of the story. With vast content-production capacity, these networks not only transmit news but also solidify its interpretive framework. In the Persian-language sphere, outlets such as BBC Persian, Iran International, and Radio Farda actively play a role in redefining events within the arena of narrative competition.
It should be noted that perception-shaping is not merely classical “propaganda.” In the platform age, data, algorithms, and speed of dissemination are decisive factors. Major Western media organizations have access to networks of reporters, military analysts, think tanks, and officials who can produce analytical and ostensibly expert narratives in the shortest possible time. This mass production of analysis creates a form of “cognitive saturation”—a space in which rival narratives struggle to gain consolidation.
Within this framework, the attack on the national broadcaster must be seen as part of a strategy of “narrative superiority”: on the one hand, reducing the capacity to produce and broadcast the official narrative; on the other, simultaneously strengthening alternative narratives at both global and Persian-language levels. This combination can create a temporal and substantive gap—a gap in which audiences turn to other sources for meaning.
Nevertheless, one point should not be overlooked: in the digital age, monopoly over narrative is nearly impossible. Even if one outlet is silenced, social networks, messaging platforms, and smaller media organizations continue to reproduce meaning. Therefore, the success of a perception strategy depends not merely on silencing a single voice, but on the ability to create “narrative convergence”—a convergence formed through repetition, speed, and institutional credibility.