In the weeks following Israel’s unprecedented airstrike on Iranian soil, official statements, media narratives, and international analysis affiliated with the Islamic Republic have repeatedly underscored one central message: this war isn’t just Israel’s doing. It’s a war designed and commanded by the United States—specifically, Donald Trump. But why is Iran pushing this interpretation? Is it a purely political line—or one grounded in strategic, intelligence-based assessments? To answer that, several political realities must be examined.
1. A Reverse Proxy War: U.S. in Command, Israel in the Field
Contrary to what Western media portray, the U.S.-Israel relationship, particularly when it comes to Iran, is far from equal. In most cases, Israel serves as a forward agent of American interests in West Asia. But in the Iran case, mounting evidence suggests Washington has been pulling the strings from behind the curtain—especially in Israel’s intelligence, cyber, and military operations.
U.S. outlets such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Foreign Policy have all reported that many of the covert operations attributed to Mossad inside Iran were carried out with the knowledge—and in some cases, active support—of U.S. intelligence agencies. From Tehran’s standpoint, Israel is merely executing a broader game plan mapped out in the Pentagon and other high-level Washington circles.
2. Maximum Pressure
Trump has repeatedly spoken in recent months about reviving his "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran and completely dismantling its nuclear enrichment capacity. While he has also flirted with the language of diplomacy, many believe these overtures were merely part of a broader psychological operation—one phase of a larger war strategy.
Iranian security analysts argue that much of the current escalation was not crafted in Tel Aviv, but in think tanks just blocks away from the White House. Trump, they say, is engineering a “controlled crisis” in the region—one that allows him to project strength and decisiveness without committing to a full-scale war. In response, Iran has strategically shifted the blame toward Washington, aiming to pin the costs and consequences of the conflict directly on the U.S.
From Tehran’s perspective, recasting the war as an “American” operation—not just a “Zionist” one—serves a dual purpose: it ramps up political pressure on Trump at home and increases the burden on U.S. institutions abroad.
3. Strategic Deterrence: Reframing the Threat
One of the golden rules of deterrence is to define the enemy at the highest possible level. When a threat is viewed as merely “tactical” or “local,” the response tends to be limited. But by identifying Trump and the U.S. as the true architects of the war, Iran is sending a clear warning: if hostilities continue, retaliation will not be confined to Israel.
This is not just rhetorical brinkmanship. It reflects a deliberate strategy to raise the cost and risk for the United States. If Washington begins to believe that its military, economic, or even human assets in the region could come under fire, it may start exercising tighter control over Tel Aviv’s actions.
4. Immunizing Public Opinion—Domestically and Regionally
Another layer of Iran’s messaging is aimed at shaping perceptions among its own people and across the so-called Axis of Resistance. By spotlighting the role of the U.S., Iran is signaling that this isn’t merely a clash with a rogue regional actor like Israel—but a global confrontation between imperialism and resistance. And in that context, Iran is not alone.
Psychologically, this framing gives greater legitimacy to Iran’s retaliatory strikes. If the conflict were perceived merely as a tit-for-tat with an aggressive neighbor, public opinion—especially internationally—might see Iranian responses as excessive. But if the U.S. is portrayed as the real aggressor, then Iran’s countermeasures are not only justified—they may be seen as a necessary act of national defense.
Tehran’s insistence on portraying Trump as the true commander of the latest military campaign—and on painting the U.S. as the architect behind Israel’s attacks—is part of a larger battle: the war of narratives.
Iran genuinely believes, and claims to have ample evidence, that Trump has been steering this conflict from behind the scenes. If it can cement this version of events, it may succeed in gaining regional backing, international recognition, and even sympathy from parts of the American public.
In today’s world, wars are not only fought on battlefields. They are fought over meanings, interpretations, and the power to tell the story. Whoever controls the narrative shapes the course of war—and Iran, with deliberate precision, is building a case that could turn the tide of public and political opinion.
NOURNEWS