Iran has backed itself into a corner in the conflict with Israel and the US

Smoke billows in the distance from an oil refinery following an Israeli strike on Tehran on June 17, 2025. AFP

The continuing standoff between Iran on one side and a US-backed Israel on the other is happening not just in military terms but also in the realm of representation.

The warring parties are performing in the battlefield and in the public domain. The latter acts as a window that reveals both political and military strengths and weaknesses, giving a glimpse of the course this war is likely to take. Military developments as well as public messaging strongly indicate that Iran is fighting a losing battle.

Israel is framing its attacks on Iran as being about self-defence; presenting the Iranian population with an opportunity for freedom; and saving the world from the threat posed by Tehran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly urged the Iranian people to rise up against the establishment, casting Israel as their external liberator. But his framing of Iran as a threat to the world transforms the war from a bilateral issue into a global matter.

An Israeli attack in on Tehran, Iran, June 18. Wana

This framing was echoed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who described Israel’s attacks as “dirty work Israel is doing for all of us”, with “us” here referring to Israel’s allies but also the world at large. Such a characterisation of the attacks on Iran is meant to serve as an endorsement of their legitimacy and necessity, standing in stark contrast to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which many countries in and outside the West publicly condemned as illegal.

Though Israel’s attacks are presented as being for the sake of global security, it is the US that has taken ownership of the overall narrative of the war. Even if Washington does not directly intervene in the war militarily, President Donald Trump has presented the US as its agenda setter. He has called on Iran to surrender, insinuated that the life of its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is in the US’s hands, and said that “we have complete and total control of the skies over Iran”.

Tehran appeared to regard the chances of US intervention against Iran’s nuclear facilities to be unlikely despite Mr Trump’s repeated affirmations that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons

During the Israel-Hezbollah war, the Israeli army’s Arabic-language spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, gained prominence for issuing orders to Lebanese residents to "evacuate" their homes ahead of Israeli strikes, leading many commentators to say that Mr Adraee had become the de facto leader in those areas. Mr Trump is playing a similar role in his call for the residents of Tehran to “evacuate”.

The statements by Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu are not incidental. They are crafted to send a message to Tehran’s ruling class that it is the US and Israel that are in charge in Iran. This is an example of psychological warfare amplified by the tools of the digital age, where such statements are not only repeated in the media but also go viral.

Mr Trump has also played on the blindness of the Iranian regime regarding the position of the US towards Iran. Tehran appeared to regard the chances of US intervention against Iran’s nuclear facilities to be unlikely despite Mr Trump’s repeated affirmations that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. Mr Trump’s “I may do it; I may not do it” statement about direct US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites serves as a tool to undermine the Iranian establishment’s self-belief.

The messages from the US and Israel have also caused a notable shift in Hezbollah’s public discourse. Following the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Hezbollah swiftly declared that it would join Hamas in what the Lebanese group called “the war of assistance”. For several months, Hezbollah kept issuing messages of defiance through its various communication channels and the speeches of its then-leader Hassan Nasrallah. The present situation is rather different.

When Israel began attacking Iran earlier this month, Hezbollah was quick to issue a statement saying the group would not initiate an attack on Israel in the course of the war. The choice of language was for the group to try to save face in justifying its inability to support Iran militarily against Israel.

Iran is left alone in trying to save itself and its reputation. While the Islamic Republic’s rise is commonly associated with the notion of revolution, Tehran has, from the beginning, also adopted a framework of victimisation as a core part of its identity.

Israel's Soroka hospital complex was hit by a missile fired from Iran in Beersheba, on June 19. AP

As early as 1979, Iran’s rulers presented the country as a victim of US imperialism, saying that resistance against this American project was a key mission for the republic. Such framing has not gone away. Iran continues to call the US “the Great Satan” and justifies much of its foreign interventions in terms of countering what it regards as American evil.

Having adopted this rigid framing of the US for almost five decades, Tehran has backed itself into a corner. Being seen to compromise in the face of American pressure means losing the credibility that the Iranian establishment has cultivated in the eyes of its supporters both domestically and regionally. This is why Mr Khamenei’s response to Mr Trump’s call for Iran to surrender has been to recycle the same tired trope of “this nation is not one to surrender”.

Some observers are making comparisons between the current war Iran is fighting and the Iran-Iraq War, which ended in 1988 when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini reluctantly accepted that Tehran had no choice but to “drink the poisoned chalice”. There is speculation whether Iran will eventually follow a similar scenario regarding Israel. But for Iran, Israel is the US-backed “Little Satan”. There can be no compromise as far as Iran’s ruling class is concerned because this would mean losing its raison d’etre.

If the end game is defeat either way, the regime would rather face it as a victim than as a quitter.