Iran’s Narrative Victory: How Tehran Won the Information War in June 2025

By Ghost Shift's Middle East Influence Operator

In June 2025, Israel stunned the world by launching a series of precision airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. Tehran had likely calculated that its ongoing nuclear talks with Washington offered some deterrent value; instead, it was caught off guard. Within hours, the United States joined the operation, targeting some of Iran’s most sensitive enrichment sites at Fordow, Esfahan, and Natanz.

For many outside observers (and for Iran’s exiled dissident groups) this was the moment they had been waiting for. The combination of military pressure and mounting economic strain seemed to offer a window for regime change. Social media feeds in Persian filled with messages of support for opposition figures, particularly Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah. For a brief moment, the collapse of the Islamic Republic appeared possible.

But twelve days later, that window had closed. The regime was still standing. Public support, far from fracturing, had consolidated. And internationally, Iran had managed to secure unexpected sympathy, particularly in parts of the Global South.

How did this happen?

The Art of Controlling the Story

From the earliest hours of the conflict, the Iranian leadership understood that the real battle was for public perception, both at home and abroad. Domestically, access to foreign social media platforms such as Instagram, Telegram, and X was sharply curtailed, making it far harder for opposition narratives to gain traction inside the country. This was not a blanket blackout. Loyalist journalists, politicians, and cultural figures retained their access, ensuring that while adversaries struggled to speak to Iranians, the regime’s preferred voices could still speak to the world.

In parallel, Tehran practised selective transparency. Imagery of civilian suffering, hospitals, residential buildings, injured children, was pushed aggressively across state and regional media. The damage to military and nuclear facilities, however, was concealed or downplayed. The most emotionally potent moments, such as the missile strike that destroyed Tehran’s state broadcaster’s glass-fronted headquarters and killed a presenter live on air, were amplified relentlessly.

Tapping into Deep Memory

Perhaps the most decisive element of the regime’s strategy was its ability to frame the conflict in historical terms. Officials referred to the fighting as “the imposed war” (جنگ تحمیلی), the same term used to describe the Iran–Iraq war of the 1980s. For many Iranians, that eight-year conflict remains a deeply formative memory: a time when external aggression demanded internal unity, regardless of political or ethnic differences.

By drawing this parallel, the government activated a cultural reflex — a collective instinct to close ranks against outsiders. This also gave Tehran room to delegitimise dissident media by equating them with the Mojahedin-e Khalq, the controversial opposition group that sided with Saddam Hussein during the 1980s war. In effect, criticism of the regime could be painted as betrayal.

The Opposition’s Missteps

While Tehran was executing a coherent strategy, its opponents were struggling to adapt. Dissident movements and sympathetic governments remained heavily reliant on Western social media platforms, which most Iranians could no longer easily access. The messaging they did manage to push out often took a one-size-fits-all approach, failing to account for the very different motivations and loyalties within Iranian society.

Perhaps most damagingly, opposition voices never presented a credible vision for what might replace the Islamic Republic. Without that alternative, even Iranians frustrated with the status quo had little reason to risk the instability of a collapse.

A Strategic Win

In the end, Iran’s ability to blend tight information control, selective storytelling, and historical framing allowed it not just to survive but to emerge politically stronger from a war that inflicted real military and economic damage. The lesson is clear: in the twenty-first century, narrative dominance can be as decisive as battlefield success.

For states, movements, and organisations operating in contested information environments, the Iranian example is a reminder that the most effective influence operations are not improvised. They are coherent, culturally attuned, and ruthlessly disciplined.

In the end, Iran’s ability to blend tight information control, selective storytelling, and historical framing allowed it not just to survive but to emerge politically stronger from a war that inflicted real military and economic damage. Much of what you’ve read here comes from Ghost Shift’s own intelligence collection — insights beyond the public record, derived from cultural fluency, linguistic reach, and operational tradecraft. That’s why we’re the partner of choice for clients who need cyber intelligence and influence outcomes in the world’s most contested environments.