自美国发动“史诗怒火行动”（Operation Epic Fury）以来，即便自称自由派或进步派的西方媒体，也大多退守到保守姿态。尽管在战场上每日都有学校、医院及公共设施被袭击的事件，却几乎没有报导敢将这些行为标示为潜在的战争罪。大多数亚洲媒体同样存在试图忽视或掩盖西方以民主名义所施加的各种侵害与伤害的情况。
破坏的修辞
对这些非法行为震耳欲聋的沉默，原本应该在4月1日被打破。当天，特朗普总统在全球演说中威胁要将伊朗“炸回石器时代”，并明言：“如果没有达成协议，我们将攻击他们每一个电力发电厂。”根据国际法，针对这类民用基础设施的攻击行动是严格禁止的，然而媒体仍将这些威胁视为标准外交，而非战争罪行的前奏。
媒体作为战争武器
西方进步媒体一直声称自己追求诚实、独立及进步的新闻，追求真相并监督掌权者。这意味著应该有：诚实的新闻、事实核查、提供背景以确保问责、维护编辑独立性，以及在国际报导中聚焦揭露问题，促进正义——在此即国际正义。
然而，在伊朗课题以及美国与以色列最近发动的战争中，媒体未能对权力进行问责，这并非偶然，而是系统性问题。进步媒体虽宣称追求真相，实际上常常沦为西方势力与利益的“助手”甚至武器。
我们在西方媒体对伊朗的报导中看到的，不只是其高尚原则的缺席，更糟糕的是，早在战争开始前，自1979年霍梅尼建立伊朗伊斯兰政权后，西方媒体就对伊朗政权持续持有的偏见。这些表现方式包括：
●偏见框架：美国和以色列的行动一贯被标为“先发制人”或“防御性”，而任何伊朗反应则被视为“专制政权的挑衅”。
●忽略与重复：报导常仅依赖西方官方消息源，而压制对立叙事。
●暴力常态化：由于长期处于“影子战争”，媒体将明目张胆的战争视为现状的升级，而非人道危机。
战略优先于人性
人命代价经常在“地缘政治棋局”分析下被忽视。当伊朗米纳布镇的女子小学被轰炸时，媒体报导迅速强调其靠近“军事目标”。这种框架将事件“洗白”，将潜在战争罪转化为合法行动的“意外副产品”。
媒体报导往往优先关注霍尔木兹海峡的局势或桥梁的破坏，而非当地发生的“生态灾难”与平民流离失所。与此同时，特朗普的“完成任务”言论被赋予过度曝光，作为道德胜利的必要性，不断重复，并使人相信“谎言说得够多就成真理”。
更令人担忧的是，美国战争部长赫格塞斯在最近的新闻简报中表态，美军将不受“愚蠢交战规则”约束，以便部队能对国家敌人进行“威慑、士气打击、追捕并消灭”的行动人”。他早前曾表示，战争部将以“最大致命力”行动，专注于“对敌方施加压倒性与惩罚性暴力”，他也在2025年1月在出任部长前，出席提名的听证上指出，在遵守日内瓦公约时，也应考量现代战争“非对称、非常规环境”。
历史循环
我们在西方媒体对伊朗的报导中看到的，是试图创造一种新闻环境，即对美国与以色列的最严重指控——无论证据多充分——都被系统性淡化或忽略。这延续了西方长期以来的历史模式，其中东方主义的刻板印象将非西方人口去人性化，以合理化西方暴力。
在全球新闻系统尚未真正独立于地缘政治与经济压力之前，西方媒体及其亚洲同谋将继续作为工具，为西方所施行压倒性国家暴力提供正当性。
目前的问题是，在西方对伊朗的军事行动上，西方媒体是“服从”还是“从犯”？国际法与政治学可提供两种视角：
社会学视角：“打造共识”
此观点认为西方媒体作为“打造共识”的工具。媒体不必被明令支持战争，但通过系统性筛选，自然而然地支持战争。
法律视角：“战争罪从犯”
国际法中，“从犯”有技术定义。若要对战争罪承担法律责任，必须符合两个条件：
●提供实际协助、鼓励或道义支持，对犯罪的实施有实质影响。
●有促成犯罪的意图，或明知其行为将协助犯罪的实施。
随著2026年2月28日战事开打后，国际组织如联合国人权办事处已开始调查可能为国际犯罪提供正当化叙事的“生产与传播”。
在伊朗案例中，批评者认为西方媒体报导是一种“战争武器”，为军事行动提供政治掩护，使其得以在无公众反抗下持续进行。
虽然被指为战争罪从犯的法律门槛很高，现代历史上也鲜少适用于主流新闻从业者，但西方媒体的报导仍是一个重要测试。同时，亚洲媒体与读者应充分认识，美国及西方的宣传常被包装成当天新闻。
林德宜《西方媒体：与西方战争罪行的共谋》原文：Western Media: Complicity in Western War Criminal Activity
Since the onset of "Operation Epic Fury," Western media—even those claiming liberal or progressive labels—have largely retreated into a protective crouch. Despite strikes hitting schools, hospitals, and utilities on a daily basis, there is a striking absence of reporting that dare label these actions as potential war crimes. Most Asian media have similarly been guilty of attempts to disregard or cover up of whatever abuses or harm practised by the West in the name of democracy.
The Rhetoric of Destruction
The deafening silence regarding these illegalities should have shattered on April 1st. In a global address, President Trump threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age,” explicitly stating, “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants”. Under international law, targeting such civilian infrastructure is strictly prohibited, yet the media continues to treat these threats as standard diplomacy rather than a prelude to war criminality.
Media as a Weapon of War
Western progressive media has continuously pronounced that they are about honest, independent, and progressive journalism, chasing the truth and holding the powerful to account. This implies honest journalism, fact-checking, providing context to ensure accountability, the maintenance of editorial independence, and a focus in their international coverage on exposing issues so that the cause of justice - in this case, international justice - is served.
This failure to hold power to account in Iran and in all the recent wars waged by the U.S. and Israel is not accidental; it is systemic. While progressive outlets claim to chase the truth, in practice, they often function as a "handmaiden" or even a weapon for Western forces and interests.
What we see in Western media reporting on the Iran war is not just the absence of their lofty principles but much worse. Even before the war began, there was a consistent pattern of anti Iran regime framing by Western media after the establishment of the Islamic government of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Since then, we see this through:
●Biased Framing: U.S. and Israeli actions are consistently labeled as "preemptive" or "defensive," while any Iranian response is dismissed as a "provocation" by an “authoritarian regime’.
●Omission and Regurgitation: Reports often rely solely on Western official sources while silencing counter-narratives.
●Normalized Violence: Because of the long-standing "shadow war," the media treats open warfare as a mere escalation of the status quo rather than a humanitarian crisis.
Strategy Over Humanity
The human cost is frequently buried under "geopolitical chess" analysis. When the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls' Elementary School in Minab was bombed, media reports were quick to emphasize the proximity of "military targets". This framing sanitizes the event, transforming a potential war crime into an "accidental byproduct" of a legitimate operation.
Coverage prioritizes the status of the Strait of Hormuz or the destruction of bridges over the "ecocide" and civilian displacement occurring on the ground. Meanwhile, Trump’s "finish the job" rhetoric is granted inordinate space. Framed as a moral necessity for victory, it is repeated ad infinitum and given credibility in the belief that a lie told often enough becomes the truth.
More worrying is the apparent endorsement by US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth who stated during a recent press briefing that the U.S. military would be bound by "no stupid rules of engagement," aimed at enabling troops to "intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. He had earlier stated that the Department of War would conduct operations with "maximum lethality," focusing on "unleashing overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy" and noted during his January 2025 nomination hearing that the application of Geneva Conventions must be considered against the "asymmetric, nonconventional environment" of modern warfare.
The Historical Cycle
What we are seeing in Western media reporting on Iran is the effort to create a news environment where the worst allegations - however much they are backed by evidence - about U.S. and Israel war conduct and actions are systematically downplayed or ignored. This is a continuation of a long-term historical pattern where Orientalist stereotypes dehumanize non-Western populations to justify violence.
Until the global news system is realigned to be truly independent of geopolitical and economic pressures, Western media and their Asian cronies will continue to work as a tool to legitimize overwhelming state violence by the West.
For now, the question is whether Western media is "compliant" or an "accessory" to the military actions in Iran. Two perspectives in international law and political science are possible.
1. The Sociological Perspective: "Manufacturing Consent"
This sees Western media functioning as a tool for "manufacturing consent". In this view, media outlets are not necessarily "ordered" to support a war, but they do so through systemic filters.
2. The Legal Perspective: "Accessory to War Crimes"
In international law, being an "accessory" has a technical definition. To be legally liable for war crimes, an entity must meet two criteria:
●Providing practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support that has a substantial effect on the commission of the crime.
●Having the intent to facilitate the crime or knowing that their actions will assist in its commission
Following the escalations on February 28, 2026, international bodies like the UN Human Rights Office have begun looking into the "production and dissemination of narratives" that may justify international crimes.
In the case of Iran, critics see Western coverage as a "weapon of war" that provides the political cover necessary for military operations to continue without public revolt.
While the legal bar for being an accessory to war crimes remains high and has rarely been applied to mainstream journalists and journalism in modern history, Western media coverage should be an important test.
Meanwhile Asian media and readers should be fully aware of American and Western propaganda passing off as news of the day.
本文观点，不代表《东方日报》立场。
公共政策分析学者
