Many had expected the joint U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure to at least be framed as a media victory. But subsequent developments showed that rather than consolidating their position, both Washington and Tel Aviv are now facing a cascade of political, media, and institutional crises. With field confrontations subsiding, these internal tensions have turned into a major challenge for the two primary actors involved.
United States: Legal Gridlock and Media Backlash
The U.S. launched its operation against Iran without congressional authorization. Donald Trump, relying on certain emergency powers, initiated the strike—a move now facing growing opposition in Washington. Reports indicate he has postponed a classified briefing to Congress explaining the rationale behind the attack, provoking anger among Democratic leaders. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has openly called the delay unjustifiable and warned that the administration must be held accountable for its blatant disregard for legal norms.
Major U.S. media outlets—particularly CNN, The New York Times, and the Associated Press—have challenged the Trump administration’s claims of success in striking Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These reports stress that not only were the sites not destroyed, but many centrifuges remained intact, and Fordow—one of the key facilities—remains operational. Trump has dismissed these accounts as "fake news," doubling down on the White House’s narrative of “total destruction.” The stark divide between the White House and American media echoes the most contentious moments of Trump’s presidency, where media realities collided with political threats.
Israel: Cabinet Divisions, Global Pressure, and Social Crisis
In Tel Aviv, the situation is even more complex. Although figures like Ehud Olmert have boasted about "successfully dragging the U.S. into war," Israeli media and political circles tell a very different story. Israel’s security cabinet is deeply divided over the ceasefire with Iran. According to Channel 13, some ministers have openly opposed halting the attacks and accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of appeasement.
Meanwhile, Israel's social resilience has significantly weakened. Iran’s retaliatory strikes, particularly on the economic and security fronts, have imposed costs that rendered continued warfare untenable. At the same time, Israel is facing unprecedented international pressure to halt its aggression—especially from Russia and China. Russia’s envoy to the UN Security Council explicitly called for Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and demanded full disclosure of its role in the attacks on Iran.
Additionally, a rare consensus among nations—especially Arab neighbors in the region—condemning Israel’s aggression against Iran underscores Tel Aviv’s failure to build a broad coalition to reignite the "Iranophobia" narrative using Tehran’s nuclear program as a pretext.
: Watchdog in Disgrace
One of the most significant outcomes of this conflict may be the unraveling of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s () credibility. The agency’s conduct during the crisis resembled that of a "technical spy" for hostile actors more than a neutral supervisory body. This prompted Iran’s parliament to pass legislation suspending cooperation with the . Now, even Western media outlets are questioning the agency’s credibility, accusing it of a professional and institutional breakdown.
Recent intelligence assessments suggest the was out of touch with the facts on the ground, relying instead on unofficial security reports. This scandal has not only eroded Iran’s trust in the agency, but also weakened its standing as a credible mediator or watchdog in future nuclear crises.
Moreover, the ’s overt alignment with the U.S. and Israel—evident in its failure to condemn the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move well within its legal obligations—has shown that neither the agency nor its Director General even attempted to preserve the appearance of impartiality or protect the battered credibility of this international institution.
Contrary to claims by American and Israeli officials, the recent attack not only failed to achieve its strategic objectives but also unleashed a chain reaction of internal crises for both Washington and Tel Aviv. The absence of political consensus in the U.S., competing narratives, media pressure, and official silence, combined with Israel’s fractured cabinet and growing international isolation, all point to a far more fragile posture among Iran’s adversaries.
In this environment, Iran has no need for propaganda or exaggeration. It simply needs to reflect the genuine cracks, scandals, and impasses emerging in the West. The smart strategy is to amplify the adversary’s internal discord—not to rehash its own achievements, which have become increasingly clear, particularly after the revelations by Qatar’s Emir regarding Donald Trump’s intense efforts to persuade Iran to agree to a ceasefire.
NOURNEWS