林德宜——伊朗战争：谁应受到谴责？

尽管美国与以色列持续发动军事攻击，伊朗仍坚守立场，拒绝向这两个侵略者及当前可能成为21世纪决定性冲突的挑动者认输。

伊朗的抵抗出乎美国总统特朗普与以色列总理内塔尼亚胡的预期。特朗普原本期待并宣称会像对付委内瑞拉般迅速取得胜利，他也预测在暗杀伊朗最高领袖哈梅内伊后将会发生政权更迭。白宫称，在战争开端阶段已击毙伊朗49名高层领导人。然而，现实与预期大相迳庭。

西方智库、主流媒体以及其亚洲支持者大多都呼应了这种快速胜利的预测。这是因为欧洲及中东盟国为美国与以色列提供了后勤、情报及作战支援。这种未正式宣战的集体军事行动，在现代战争中是前所未见的。

百年干预：冲突根源

对于谁应为开战负责，美国与以色列一方，还是伊朗一方，这不应有任何疑问。

西方主流媒体与许多评论员在解释这场战争时，拒绝谴责美以两国的责任。他们长期从事的宣传活动，意图掩盖伊朗近代史中关键事件与发展，阻碍公众基于事实的独立思考与批判理解伊朗的不信任情绪及其与西方的关系。这种西方的洗脑手法在日本、菲律宾及其他美国亚洲盟国中效果显著。

西方媒体今日掩盖真相的尝试，其实早在超过40年前就开始，当时伊朗政府就被妖魔化。1979年伊朗革命推翻巴列维王朝，建立了霍梅尼领导下的伊斯兰共和国。由于民众普遍反对巴列维的专制、过度西化与经济不平等，于1979年1月16日发起了大规模抗议，巴列维逃离伊朗，巴列维王朝随即崩溃。

许多年轻读者不知道的是，巴列维之所以掌权，是因1953年由美英策动的政变结果，以保护两国在伊朗与中东的石油及政治利益。这项行动，美国中央情报局称之为“阿贾克斯行动”，英国军情六处则称为“靴子行动”，以政变手段推翻民选的总理穆罕默德摩萨德。

自那时起，美国与西方主要行动，都出于当初72年前干预的相同政治与经济利益驱动，而如今以色列在引发这场战争中扮演主导角色，试图再次更换政权，扶持一个服从美国及其盟友的政府。

西方媒体战争推手角色

不可否认，西方大众媒体在伊朗新闻报导中扮演了积极的共犯角色，助长了现今局势。

西方主要新闻机构频繁使用特定叙事与标签，试图将伊朗政府塑造成国际威胁与“不受欢迎者”。

主要标签与叙事策略：

“流氓国家”与“恐怖主义政权”：西方媒体经常将伊朗政府描述为危险、非理性且“恐怖”的行为者。

“嗜血暴徒”：哈梅内伊死亡后，西方媒体的修辞更强烈，以高度道德化的语言妖魔化伊朗领导层，如“嗜血暴徒”，并将军事行动合理化为报复或正义。

“存在性威胁”（核与导弹焦点）：媒体经常强调伊朗核计划，称之为“存在性威胁”，但并未提供可信证据。

“内部压迫者”对“文明”：报导通常将干预描绘为保护伊朗人民免受本国政府侵害的必要行动。

“无端侵略者”：尽管西方联军率先发动军事打击，媒体却经常将伊朗反应描绘为无端侵略，而非防卫，颠倒责任叙事。

善恶对立框架

使用特定词汇来形容伊朗领导层没人性，并将冲突描绘为“善与恶”的对峙。

“极其残暴、可怕的人群”：特朗普近期用以形容伊朗领导层。

“高度不稳定且危险政权”：用以暗示传统威慑或外交手段无效，因为伊朗政权的不理性。

“世界主要恐怖主义国家赞助者”：华府长期使用这字眼来形容伊朗，进而将任何攻击伊朗行为描绘为反恐行动。

文明与宗教框架

最危险的媒体讯息可能是将世俗政治转向“文明冲突”及“神学命运”的叙事。

“恶性影响”：五角大楼用以描述伊朗区域活动的总称，暗示这是一种“病态”，需以武力“消除”。

“神职人员”：常用以凸显伊朗国家的神权性质，暗示其落后且不符合现代世俗西方价值。

“圣经末日”：在以美部分政治圈中，也有使用偏向末日意象修辞，将冲突框定为“神的计划”或“基督回归的信号”。

其他标签与后果

西方媒体还公开宣传绕过国际法的理由。当前使用“迫在眉睫的威胁”来合理化“先发制人的自卫”，解释为何不需正式宣战，以及为何和平条件是需伊朗完全无条件投降。

西方媒体的框架、选择性报导、双重标准及排他性的反面叙事，曾在美国于越南及阿富汗战争的最终失败中发挥作用。这种模式如今正在伊朗重演。

林德宜《伊朗战争：谁应受到谴责？》原文：Iran War: Who Should Be Condemned?

Despite relentless military strikes by the United States and Israel, Iran is standing firm and refusing to concede victory to the two aggressors and instigators of what is shaping to be a defining conflict of the 21st century. 

The resistance is against the expectations of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump expected and proclaimed a quick victory ala Venezuela. He also anticipated regime change following the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei. According to the White House 49 of Iran’s top leaders taken out in the opening phase of the war campaign. Reality on the ground has proven different.

Western think-tanks and mass media and their Asian supporters have largely echoed these predictions of a quick victory. This is because European and Middle East allies have provided logistical, intelligence and combat services to fight the war on behalf of the U.S. and Israel. This collective effort without formal declaration of hostilities, is unprecedented in modern warfare. 

A Century of Intervention: The Root of the Conflict 

There should be no doubt about which party - the U.S. and Israel on the one side and Iran on the other -  bears the responsibility for initiating the war.

We have seen Western mainstream media and many Western commentators refuse to condemn the culpability of the US and Israel when explaining the war. They have also been long engaged in a propaganda exercise aimed at obscuring and obscurating the key issues and developments relating to Iran’s recent history that can provide a fact based, independent and critical understanding of the origins of Iranian distrust, its relationship with the West. This brainwashing by the West has been very successful in Japan, Philippines and other allies of the US in Asia.

The attempt by Western media to suppress the truth today has been preceded by over 40 years of demonizing of the Iranian government. It began when the 1979 Iranian Revolution ousted Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and replaced his government with an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Khomeini. Fueled by widespread opposition to the Shah’s autocracy, Westernization, and economic inequality, massive protests forced the Shah to flee on January 16, 1979, leading to the Pahlavi dynasty's collapse.

Very few young readers are aware that the Shah came to power as the outcome of the 1953 coup d'état, orchestrated by the U.S. and U.K. to protect their oil and political interests in Iran and the Middle East. Known as Operation Ajax by the CIA and Operation Boot by MI6, the coup saw the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. 

Since then, the US and the West, driven largely by the same political and economic interests that motivated their initial intervention 72 years ago -  but now with a dominant Israeli role in instigating the present war - is attempting another regime change to install a government subservient to the U.S. and its allies.

Western Media As War Monger  

There is irrefutable evidence that Western mass media has been an active accessory in the news coverage of Iran leading to the situation today. 

Several specific narratives and labeling appear prominently in the West’s leading news agencies’ attempt to frame the Iranian government as an international threat and pariah.

Key labels and narrative strategies include:

"Rogue State" and "Terrorist" Regime: Western outlets frequently characterize the government as a dangerous, irrational, and "terrorist" actor.

"Bloodthirsty Thugs": Following the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, rhetoric in Western media has intensified, with the Iranian leadership demonized in highly moralistic terms, such as "bloodthirsty thugs," and justifying the military action as retribution or justice.

"Existential Threat" (Nuclear and Missile Focus): Media reports have regularly emphasized Iran’s nuclear program, describing it as an "existential threat”, despite providing no credible evidence.

"Internal Suppressor" vs. "Civilization": Coverage often frames intervention as a necessity for protecting the Iranian people from their own government.

"Unprovoked Aggressor": Despite the blatant initiation of military strikes by Western-aligned forces, the media often frames Iranian responses as unprovoked aggression rather than defense, reversing the narrative of culpability.

Good Vs Evil Trope 

Other terms are designed to dehumanize the Iranian leadership and frame the conflict in "good vs. evil" terms.

"Vicious group of very hard, terrible people": Used by Trump recently to describe the Iranian leadership.

"Highly unstable and dangerous regime": Often invoked to suggest that traditional deterrence or diplomacy is impossible because the actors are irrational.

"The world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism": A long-standing staple in Washington that frames any of its strikes as a counter-terrorism operation.

Civilizational and Religious Tropes

Perhaps the most dangerous of media messaging is the shift from secular politics to “clashes of civilizations” and “theological destiny” narratives.

"Malign influence": A catch-all term used by the Pentagon to describe Iranian regional activities suggests a "sickness" that needs to be "extinguished" by force.

"The Mullahs": Frequently used to emphasize the theocratic nature of the Iranian state, implying it is archaic and incompatible with the modern secular West.

"Biblical Armageddon": In some Israel and U.S. political circles, rhetoric has leaned into apocalyptic imagery, framing the conflict as a "divine plan" or a "signal fire" for the return of Christ.

Other Labeling and Consequences

Western media have taken to publicising statements justifying the bypassing of international law. For now, the phrase "imminent threats" is used to justify "anticipatory self-defense” and to explain why there is no need for a formal declaration of war and also why peace needs a total and unconditional surrender by Iran.  

Western media’s framing, selective reporting, and double standards, and the exclusion of counter narratives played a role in the eventual military defeats of the U.S. in Vietnam and Afghanistan. 

It is a pattern that is being repeated in Iran today. 

本文观点，不代表《东方日报》立场。