A massive Information Warfare has been on display ever since US and Israeli war planes bombed Iran on February 28.
High-tech warfare came in later.
As in any modern warfare, the Information war forms the basis on which high-tech wars are fought and decides the result in most cases. In the Iran-Israel-US war, it began with the nuclear issue, followed by the missile controversy and plans by the then Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to allegedly assassinate US President Donald Trump. There was, however, no evidence for the assassination plan narrative.
In such narratives, the main news that should get prominence, like the killing of 165 innocent school girls in Minab in southern Iran on February 28, is buried. International media and humanitarian organisations reported the incident, but very sheepishly. The prominence it should have had was not seen.
In this war that is entering its second week, both international and domestic Indian media carry news that is often contradictory and laced with narratives. While international media do it intentionally with purpose, domestic media get carried away and carry reports without verifying or double-checking.
One of the glaring examples of the contradictory reports was about Trump taking stock of the arms and ammunition stockpiles and saying the US has virtually unlimited supplies of medium and upper-grade weapons. ‘’We have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. The United States is stocked and ready to win big,’’ Trump said on his social media platform.
However, the next day, on March 4, Russian media said the US may not be able to sustain a full-scale war of attrition in the Persian Gulf at the current pace of munition deliveries. The report, quoting experts, said depletion of ammunition stocks in West Asia and logistical issues may cause major headaches for the US-led coalition. It said the existing stockpiles in warehouses and arsenals of air and naval US bases across the region, including Israel, contain a limited number of shells, bombs and drones, according to the military pundit.
Indian media carried both versions, contradicting each other.
About the bombing of the girls’ school, Iranian state media and officials report a final death toll of 165 to 186 students. The majority were girls aged 7 to 12.
Independent reports by The New York Times, REUTERS, and Al Jazeera cited sources suggesting US forces were likely responsible, possibly due to an intelligence failure. However, the US Department of Defence and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US “would not deliberately target a school” and that an investigation is ongoing.
Israeli military officials initially said they were “not aware” of operations in that specific area.
Some social media accounts and opposition groups attempted to label the event a “hoax” or “friendly fire” from a failed Iranian missile; however, DW and BBC debunked these claims, confirming the school’s destruction.
UNESCO and Amnesty International formally condemned the incident as a “grave violation of humanitarian law.” While some analysts suggest Western media were initially reluctant to blame the US or Israel, the scale of the tragedy led to extensive coverage across major platforms.
This is evidence of a high-stakes battle for narratives between Western, Iranian, and independent actors regarding the tragic incident. Critics and some international observers have noted a disparity in how the event was initially reported.
According to reports in the French daily ‘Libération,’ much of the Western press was initially reluctant to blame US or Israeli forces for the attack. By focusing on official denials from the Pentagon and the Israeli military (who claimed to be “unaware” of the strike), Western media “buried” the horror under a layer of procedural scepticism.
Some reports said the school was hit by a misfired Iranian (IRGC) missile. These claims were later debunked.
The New York Times, Reuters, and the CBC published reports saying the strike was a US precision attack that likely resulted from an intelligence failure.
Al Jazeera said the targeting may have been “deliberate” or showed “reckless disregard,” as the school had been a clearly defined civilian institution for over a decade.
Humanitarian costs, including the lives lost so far since February 28, have remained out of public scrutiny.
However, when four US soldiers were killed, the global media carried the news prominently. The killing of 165 school girls became a not-so-important development.
The number of civilian casualties on both sides is not known.
Critics and international observers have highlighted several patterns in the Western media’s approach.
Western outlets have implicitly supported the offensive by adopting the US-Israeli framing of “peace through strength” or “eliminating terrorist infrastructure” rather than highlighting humanitarian costs.
Most coverage focuses on the “regime change” narrative and the dismantling of nuclear capabilities.
To further complicate the information flow, Iran has enforced a near-total internet blackout, while the US uses satellites. RAMESH BHAN
