Why Iran is not giving in, despite heavy ‘pummelling’
Analysis Summary
This article describes how Iran is escalating attacks and refusing diplomatic solutions in a war with the US and Israel, primarily by threatening global energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. It claims Iran believes it can outlast the US by causing economic pain. The article also suggests that despite this outward defiance, Iran's leaders are worried about the long-term consequences of the conflict.
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
"As the war in Iran enters its fourth week and US operations increasingly focus on global energy flows..."
The 'fourth week' phrasing creates a sense of ongoing, developing news, prompting continuous attention.
"Instead, Tehran is escalating attacks on its neighbours, betting it can ratchet up global economic pain faster than the Trump administration can relieve it with military force..."
Highlights a new, evolving strategy from Iran, suggesting a novel and high-stakes conflict approach.
Authority signals
"according to an Iranian diplomat, two European diplomats stationed in the region and a senior Arab official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to brief the media on sensitive details."
Relies heavily on multiple, anonymous diplomatic sources in the region, lending an air of insider knowledge and credibility without specific attribution.
"'We’re still on an escalatory path,' said Alan Eyre, a fellow at the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, who worked as a State Department official focused on Iran."
Leverages the credentials and experience of a former State Department official and think tank fellow to provide analytical authority.
"Beneath the public bravado, Iran’s leadership is grappling with deep concerns about the war’s long-term costs, said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former US intelligence officer focused on Iran, now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, a Washington think tank known for a hawkish stance on Iran."
Uses the credibility of a former US intelligence officer and senior fellow at a prominent think tank to bolster the analysis of Iranian internal thinking.
Tribe signals
"Instead, Tehran is escalating attacks on its neighbours, betting it can ratchet up global economic pain faster than the Trump administration can relieve it with military force..."
Frames the conflict as a direct contest between 'Tehran' and the 'Trump administration', implying a clear adversarial relationship with global implications.
"'As long as the regime is there, they can create terror in the region, they terrorise international markets with the oil and gas prices. Yes, that’s what winning is for them,' said one of the European diplomats, who is based in the Persian Gulf."
Clearly delineates 'the regime' (Iran) as the antagonist that 'terrorises' the region and markets, contrasting them with 'us' (implied global stability, international markets).
"'The new year will be a year of delivering a strong blow to Iran’s enemies. [Iran] will emerge from these storms with pride and stronger than before.' Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iranian parliament Speaker"
This quote from an Iranian official, while reporting, is used in the article to highlight Iran's self-perception of being against 'enemies', reinforcing the us-vs-them narrative for the reader.
Emotion signals
"Iran’s unwillingness to capitulate is wrapped up in the power it exerts over the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s fuel shipments transit, that Tehran has largely closed, roiling energy markets."
Evokes fear of global economic instability by highlighting Iran's control over a critical energy chokepoint and its impact on 'roiling energy markets'.
"President Donald Trump gave Iran a 48-hour deadline on Saturday to reopen the critical waterway, threatening to 'obliterate' the country’s power plants if Tehran doesn’t comply."
The threat of 'obliterate' serves to engineer fear of drastic military escalation and widespread destruction, raising emotional stakes.
"Qatari and Omani officials began contacting Iran about a possible ceasefire last week after they assessed that overwhelming US and Israeli military force would be unable to topple the Iranian government in the near term..."
Creates a sense of urgency and high stakes by reporting on attempts for a ceasefire and the assessment that military force wouldn't quickly resolve the conflict, implying prolonged danger.
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 aims to install the belief that Iran is an irrational, defiant actor primarily responsible for the escalation and continuation of the conflict, driven by a desire to inflict economic pain and an unwillingness to negotiate constructively. It suggests Iran's actions are rooted in short-term gain and a self-serving interpretation of 'winning' that ignores the long-term detriment to its people, while the US and Israel are reactive, albeit forceful, players attempting to restore stability and secure global energy flows. The article also targets the belief that Iran's leadership, despite public bravado, is deeply concerned about long-term costs and potential internal unrest.
The article shifts the context from the US and Israel initiating military action against Iran to Iran being the primary aggressor escalating conflict and 'rebuffing efforts' for diplomacy. This reframing makes the US/Israeli military responses, including threats to 'obliterate' power plants and widespread airstrikes, appear as justified reactions to Iranian intransigence and aggression, rather than initial acts of war or disproportionate force. The article moves away from considering the initial rationale or legality of the US/Israeli military intervention to focus on Iran's responses.
The article omits significant context regarding the stated reasons for the US and Israeli initiation of the war against Iran (e.g., alleged threats, pre-emptive strikes, specific provocations that led to the US/Israeli intervention, or the international legal framework, if any, for these actions). It also omits the long-term history of US-Iran relations, previous acts of aggression or interference, and the specific international agreements or disputes that may have preceded the conflict. The 'war launched by the United States and Israel' is mentioned but not elaborated upon, minimizing the perception of their agency in initiating the conflict itself, and instead focusing on Iran's subsequent 'escalation'.
The article implicitly grants permission for continued or even escalated US and Israeli military pressure against Iran, including forceful reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, by portraying Iran as an unyielding and dangerous actor that only understands force. It nudges the reader to view Iran's resistance as irrational and detrimental to global stability, thus implicitly endorsing firm, potentially aggressive, actions to compel Iran to comply and stabilize energy markets. It encourages a perspective that sees any negative outcomes (e.g., civilian casualties, economic disruption) as attributable to Iran’s 'defiance' rather than US/Israeli actions.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"By partially closing the Strait, Iran is seeking to “make this aggression super expensive for the aggressors”, according to the Iranian diplomat. “We are alone against the biggest military superpower of the history,” he said. ... Iran’s leaders think that with enough economic pain, they can force Trump to back down, he said. “Iran still hasn’t made their point; they are still trying to up the costs.”"
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"According to officials in the region. ... according to an Iranian diplomat, two European diplomats stationed in the region and a senior Arab official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to brief the media on sensitive details. ... the diplomat’s assessment... 'As long as the regime is there, they can create terror in the region, they terrorise international markets with the oil and gas prices. Yes, that’s what winning is for them,' said one of the European diplomats, who is based in the Persian Gulf. 'They don’t feel any pressure to negotiate.' ... Qatari and Omani officials began contacting Iran about a possible ceasefire last week after they assessed that overwhelming US and Israeli military force would be unable to topple the Iranian government in the near term, according to the Arab official and the European diplomats. ... Alan Eyre, a fellow at the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, who worked as a State Department official focused on Iran. ... Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former US intelligence officer focused on Iran, now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, a Washington think tank known for a hawkish stance on Iran."
Techniques Found(7)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"Iran’s unwillingness to capitulate is wrapped up in the power it exerts over the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s fuel shipments transit, that Tehran has largely closed, roiling energy markets."
The word 'capitulate' is emotionally charged, implying Iran should surrender or yield. 'Roiling energy markets' uses strong, negative language to describe the economic impact.
"President Donald Trump gave Iran a 48-hour deadline on Saturday to reopen the critical waterway, threatening to “obliterate” the country’s power plants if Tehran doesn’t comply."
The threat to 'obliterate' uses highly dramatic and absolute language to convey a severe consequence, potentially exaggerating the immediate likelihood or intended scope of such an action.
"By partially closing the Strait, Iran is seeking to “make this aggression super expensive for the aggressors”, according to the Iranian diplomat."
The term 'super expensive' is an emotionally charged and hyperbolic description of the economic cost, rather than a more neutral assessment.
"“As long as the regime is there, they can create terror in the region, they terrorise international markets with the oil and gas prices. Yes, that’s what winning is for them,” said one of the European diplomats, who is based in the Persian Gulf."
The repeated use of 'terror' and 'terrorise' is emotionally charged, associating Iran's actions with fear and violence beyond a neutral description of economic pressure or destabilization.
"“This is the very beginning of the US getting stuck in a swamp,” he said. “There is no other ramp off.”"
The metaphor of 'getting stuck in a swamp' is a loaded phrase used to evoke a sense of inevitable, protracted, and difficult military entanglement, carrying negative connotations.
"“The new year will be a year of delivering a strong blow to Iran’s enemies. [Iran] will emerge from these storms with pride and stronger than before.”"
This quote from the Speaker of Iran’s parliament functions as a slogan, a brief and catchy phrase designed to unify and inspire within Iran, projecting strength and defiance.
"Iran responded with overwhelming violence, killing thousands of people."
The phrase 'overwhelming violence' is emotionally charged and designed to evoke a strong negative reaction to Iran's actions against protestors. While the events described may be severe, the wording is chosen to amplify the emotional impact.