From Saddam Hussein to Israel: How Iran's wars have divided a nation - analysis
Analysis Summary
The article contrasts Iran's national unity during the 1980 Iraq invasion with current signs of public disillusionment toward the regime, suggesting that some Iranians now see foreign strikes as justified due to the government's loss of legitimacy. It uses emotional language and selective historical comparisons to make the case that patriotism no longer means loyalty to the Islamic Republic, while leaving out broader context about US and Israeli foreign policies in the region. The piece subtly frames foreign military action as morally acceptable when a population turns against its government.
Cross-Outlet PSYOP Detected
This article is part of a narrative being pushed across multiple outlets:
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"The sight of Iranians publicly thanking an Israeli prime minister and an American president for military action against targets inside their own country would have been almost inconceivable during the Iran-Iraq War."
The article uses a contrast between past and present to create a sense of historical novelty—highlighting behavior (thanking foreign leaders for strikes on Iran) that is framed as unprecedented and shocking. This captures attention by suggesting a dramatic shift in national sentiment, though it does so within a factual and contextual framework rather than sensationalizing it.
Authority signals
"IRGC spokesman Brigadier-General Ali Mohammad Naeini declaring that Israel had encountered the 'ironclad unity of the Iranian people.'"
The article cites statements from official Iranian military figures, but does so to report their claims, not to endorse or amplify them as authoritative truth. The context makes clear these are regime assertions being analyzed, not sources the article relies on for validation. This is standard sourcing, not authority manipulation.
Tribe signals
"The Islamic Republic's present leadership has sought to draw upon much the same sentiment, invoking the nationalistic language of sacrifice, sovereignty, and resistance, while insisting that the nation stands firmly behind its armed forces."
The article describes how the regime constructs a 'nation vs. foreign aggressor' narrative, but does so critically—by juxtaposing it with evidence of public dissent. It does not manufacture tribalism itself but analyzes how the government attempts to deploy it. The framing remains analytical, not tribal.
Emotion signals
"The nationwide uprising that began in December 2025, and the massacres that followed in January, which left an estimated 40,000 people killed in two days, added another devastating chapter to that history."
The mention of 40,000 killed in two days is highly emotive and could spike outrage, especially given the lack of independent verification cited. While mass violence is plausible in context, the specific figure—presented without attribution—risks disproportionate emotional amplification. However, it is contextualized within a broader argument about regime-citizen estrangement, not used to incite action.
"Graffiti appealing directly to US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began appearing during the January uprising, including messages pleading with them to intervene as protesters faced the security forces."
The portrayal of Iranians appealing to Trump and Netanyahu—particularly given the symbolic weight of Israel in Iranian state discourse—carries an implicit moral contrast: the oppressed turning to historical enemies for salvation. This evokes a sense of tragic reversal that may subtly encourage reader judgment of the regime’s illegitimacy, though it is grounded in reported events.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article is designed to produce the belief that the Iranian population's relationship with the Islamic Republic has fundamentally fractured over time, such that patriotism no longer equates to loyalty to the regime. It aims to install the idea that, unlike in 1980 when external aggression unified Iranians across political divides, today's population views the government as so illegitimate that some welcome foreign military actions against it. This is achieved by contrasting historical unity during the Iran-Iraq War with contemporary expressions of gratitude toward US and Israeli leaders, suggesting a profound erosion of regime legitimacy.
The article shifts the context of foreign military action from being inherently illegitimate or imperialist to being conditionally acceptable when directed against a deeply unpopular regime. By emphasizing that US and Israeli strikes targeted only military and nuclear infrastructure and were framed as anti-regime rather than anti-population, it normalizes the idea that external force can be a legitimate response to authoritarian rule. This makes expressions of gratitude toward foreign leaders seem like understandable, even courageous, acts of dissent rather than treason.
The article omits any discussion of how the US and Israel have historically supported authoritarian regimes in the region, including past support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. It also omits the broader geopolitical consequences of foreign military intervention in sovereign states, such as regional destabilization or the precedent it sets for violating international law. The absence of this context makes the normalization of foreign strikes against Iran appear less controversial and more morally straightforward than it might otherwise.
The article implicitly grants permission for the reader to view foreign military action against authoritarian regimes as morally permissible or even justified when domestic populations express support. It nudges the reader toward emotional sympathy for Iranians who welcome such strikes, and by extension, toward accepting that external intervention can be a legitimate tool when a government has lost internal legitimacy.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"The article presents Iranians thanking US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for military strikes as observable, documented phenomena—'graffiti appealing directly to US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began appearing'—and treats these acts as meaningful indicators of public sentiment, thereby normalizing what would traditionally be considered highly controversial or taboo behavior in the Iranian context."
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"IRGC spokesman Brigadier-General Ali Mohammad Naeini declaring that Israel had encountered the 'ironclad unity of the Iranian people' and President Masoud Pezeshkian accusing the US and Israel of attempting to sow divisions—statements that are formulaic, repetitive, and consistent with regime propaganda, suggesting coordinated messaging rather than spontaneous or individual insight."
Techniques Found(4)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"the massacres that followed in January, which left an estimated 40,000 people killed in two days"
Uses the term 'massacres' to describe state violence against protesters, which, given the scale and context (40,000 killed in two days), aligns with documented severe human rights violations. However, the term 'massacres' is emotionally charged and, while accurate given the reported death toll, functions as loaded language by framing the event with strong moral condemnation. This qualifies as loaded language because it adds an emotional valence that reinforces the article's narrative of regime brutality, even if factually grounded.
"Arash occupies a special place in Iranian mythology, a patriotic figure immersed in the defense of the nation's territorial integrity."
Invokes the mythological figure of Arash as a symbol of patriotism and national defense to contrast with the current government's reception, thereby appealing to shared cultural and national values. This strengthens the implication that the regime no longer embodies authentic Iranian identity or patriotism.
"Arash occupies a special place in Iranian mythology, a patriotic figure immersed in the defense of the nation's territorial integrity."
References a national mythological hero associated with patriotism and sacrifice for the homeland, using national symbolism to evoke emotional resonance and imply that true Iranian identity is at odds with the current regime. This is flag waving because it leverages national pride and identity to frame the people's rejection of government figures as a defense of authentic national values.
"The bombing of one's country by foreign powers is hardly a straightforward proposition, regardless of how deeply one despises those who govern it."
Minimises the moral and legal complexity of foreign military strikes by framing them as a 'bombing of one's country' without distinguishing between legitimate military targets and civilian attacks. Given that the article later reports civilian casualties, this phrasing downplays the severity of such actions by presenting them as a general emotional dilemma rather than critiquing the legality or proportionality of the strikes, thus minimising the harm caused by foreign powers.