Nournews: Imagine the scene: the U.S. president stands before the cameras and confidently claims that protesters in Iran have seized major cities—speaking of the “capture of Mashhad,” of millions flooding the streets, of a political system on the brink of collapse. He even suggests that a single pressure move or a limited strike could complete the process. Shortly afterward, these same claims fail to align with field data and independent reports. Images and statistics tell a different story. This is where the real question begins: where did this picture come from?
Not only during the recent unrest, but over the past several years and at various junctures, Trump has put forward narratives about Iran that later turned out to be exaggerated or based on incomplete data and unverified social-media reports—from the claim that protesters were holding his photograph during recent demonstrations, to descriptions of “full control of the streets” by opponents, or assertions of ongoing chaos and disorder in Iran that he reiterated only recently. The repetition of this pattern moves the issue beyond an isolated mistake and turns it into a question of an “information supply chain.”
In today’s political world, presidents rarely receive raw data. What reaches their desks is the product of multiple layers of processing: think-tank reports, rapid briefings, media analyses, social-media data, and advisers’ memos. On Iran, there exists a relatively coherent network of policy and pressure organizations that for years has focused on producing threat-centered narratives. At the heart of this network, two names are frequently repeated: UANI and FDD.
United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a U.S.-based nongovernmental organization that concentrates on economic and sanctions pressure against Iran, seeking—through reports and campaigns—to dissuade companies and international institutions from engaging with the country. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), meanwhile, is a Washington-based think tank active in national security and Middle East policy, known for its hardline positions on Iran. The reports and analyses produced by these organizations are widely circulated in the media and even make their way into official congressional sessions.
Surrounding this core is a circle of analysts and commentators who consistently produce content on Iran and are frequently cited in English-language media—figures such as Behnam Ben Taleblu, Ghasseminejad, Brodsky, and others. The key point is not merely their presence, but the narrative alignment of their outputs. A pessimistic assessment or a maximalist scenario is released through several channels in quick succession, giving political audiences the impression of an expert consensus.
The typical pattern works like this: an alarmist report is published; several high-profile accounts amplify it; Persian-language satellite channels abroad give it added weight; mainstream media outlets republish it; and eventually the claim turns into the “dominant perception.” Along the way, the distinction between “possibility,” “analysis,” and “fact” becomes blurred. When such a package reaches a policymaker who favors short briefings and simplified narratives, the risk of perceptual error rises sharply.
The consequence of such an error is not limited to a single incorrect statement from a podium. If a senior decision-maker concludes—based on this image—that the opposing side is on the verge of collapse, riskier options begin to appear rational: maximum pressure with the expectation of rapid breakdown, or even limited military action on the assumption of no effective response. At this point, a flawed narrative can translate into a costly strategic decision—one whose impact is not merely bilateral, but capable of affecting regional and international order.
In this context, Israel’s role in this narrative chain cannot be reduced to mere political positioning. Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu, have repeatedly spoken openly of “narrative-building” and “media operations” as components of power and national security.
Over recent years, a network of lobbying groups, research centers, media projects, and analysts close to Israel’s security discourse has consistently focused on highlighting the Iranian threat and the necessity of maximum pressure. The temporal and substantive overlap between this current and the output of some influential Washington think tanks suggests that we are not dealing with a set of scattered actors, but with a synergistic narrative-producing ecosystem. Within such a framework, it is plausible that some of the exaggerated or directional data entering the analytical cycle—and eventually the decision-making packages—are generated and reinforced within this network, ultimately shaping Trump’s perception of realities on the ground in Iran.
The key question, then, is this: what does the data flow map look like? Who produces the initial data? Who interprets it? Which media outlets lend it credibility? And how does it reach the president’s ear? Once this map is drawn, it becomes clear that some misleading narratives are not the result of random error, but the product of a narrative-making ecosystem—one capable of surrounding the decision-maker’s mind and altering the course of major decisions.
NOURNEWS