Iran war language: Is it 'epic?' Are Iranians 'bloodthirsty thugs?'
The language of war is nearly as important as the war itself, since this language frames the public discourse about the war—discourse that can lead to either support for or opposition to the conflict.

In the case of the Iran war, many Western media outlets have resorted to inflammatory, demonizing, sensational, and stereotyping language that helps to fuel and sustain conflict. Yes, U.S. public support for the Iran war is low (39%,vs. 54% who oppose it). Would it be even lower if the media were using more neutral language to frame the war?

The media’s use of sensational language begins when journalists parrot the administration’s propagandistic, video-game-esque moniker for the war, “Operation Epic Fury.” On CNN.com, Harmeet Kaur writes  that "epic" is a word rooted in antiquity that today colloquially means “particularly impressive or remarkable.” He believes that using “epic” to describe a war makes the violence feel remote and "spectacular," rather than a human tragedy. 

AI generated image

Former CNN and BBC journalist Jim Stenman agrees. He writes that using the administration’s term is evocative of the “Shock and Awe” propaganda from the Bush Administration during the Iraq war. “Today, the vocabulary has evolved, but the underlying mechanism remains unchanged: the aestheticization of catastrophe,” he observes. “There is a clinical efficiency in branding a war or conflict in this manner. When a crisis is packaged with such theatrical flair, it serves as a psychological buffer for the viewer. It makes the unthinkable marketable, framing geopolitical failure as a structured, almost heroic saga. It makes the tragic digestible, aligning it with the visual language of sports broadcasts or entertainment events.” 

For these reasons, media should avoid using “Operation Epic Fury” altogether, and instead use more neutral language like “Iran war.”

Aside from the parroting propagandistic language, much of the other vocabulary being used by Western media also demonizes and misrepresents the combatants. An interesting piece in Eurasia Review talks about the demonizing labels being used to characterize Iran as a “rogue state,” “terrorist regime,” and “bloodthirsty thugs.” This language can be used to justify the war, alongside falsely characterizing the “existential threat” posed by Iran’s comatose nuclear program. Taken together, the labels create a picture of a demonic, threatening Iran that deserved to be attacked. Using this language merely reinforces the administration’s propaganda. Instead, the press should present more balanced viewpoints that contain neutral, sober language and analysis that feeds less on emotion, and more on the facts surrounding the war’s inception and conduct.

Another interesting analysis of language being used by Western media appears in the Al Jazeera Journalism Review, a pro-Arab, anti-Israeli, oftentimes anti-Western media outlet. Despite their biases, the authors make an interesting point about vocabulary used by CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post  used to describe military actions. Words used on these outlets shift, according to the authors, “depending on who carries them out. When the United States or Israel launches strikes, their actions are frequently framed as ‘self-defense,’ retaliation,’ ‘deterrence,’ or even as an effort to protect ‘freedom’ and ‘stability.’ When countries such as Iran or Venezuela respond militarily, however, their actions are far more likely to be described as ‘escalation,’ ‘provocation,’ or a ‘threat to regional security.’” The article goes on to cite many examples. 

When media use inflammatory, sensational, and demonizing language, they meet the needs of the purveyors of propaganda rather than the public, which needs a clear-eyed, objective examination of the war.

Next: In Part III, we’ll look specifically at coverage of the school bombing in Iran, and how language and competing narratives have clouded and minimized the tragedy.