Who Benefits from Fearing Iran?
The United States has justified its military action against Iran primarily on the grounds of the Iranian nuclear programme. According to American officials, Iran's growing nuclear capabilities represent a significant threat to national and international security. While Iranian authorities have stated that their nuclear programme serves peaceful and defensive purposes, Washington has framed the issue as one that requires urgent action.
However, when observing media and political discourse, another question emerges: is the focus truly on the nuclear programme, or is Iran itself the problem? Are geopolitical and security concerns the only factors driving the conflict between the US and Iran, or are deeper ideological divisions the real source of these tensions?
One of the most recurring features of Western media narratives is the portrayal of Iran as a "rogue state," a "terror regime," or a persistent threat to global stability (Davis 2026). This framing matters because it shapes public perception (Nacos 2011). In fact, the way a threat is presented can be just as influential as the threat itself. Political support for military intervention is often reinforced by fears about the future, target enumeration and elite warnings. Media reports and political speeches frequently focus on hypothetical scenarios: the possibility of Iranian attacks, threats to American cities, or dangers posed to American citizens and allies. Whether these scenarios are realistic or not, they contribute to a climate of fear in which military action can appear not only acceptable but necessary.
In this context, the nuclear programme becomes more than a security issue. It becomes a symbol through which broader concerns and anxieties about Iran itself are expressed.
For decades, the relationship between the United States and Iran has been shaped not only by strategic interests, including the vast oil reserves of the Middle East and access to the Persian Gulf, but also by competing political identities, values, and visions of world order. The rise of terrorism and the "War on Terror" further intensified these divisions. In many Western narratives, the Middle East has often been portrayed through a lens of extremism, instability, and danger. This representation has frequently reinforced ideas of Western moral superiority while marginalizing alternative understandings of the region.
From this perspective, the nuclear programme may not simply be a security concern. It may also function as a powerful justification for confronting a long-standing political and ideological rival. In this context, media narratives may serve the interests of groups that benefit politically, strategically, or economically from confrontation with Iran. Whether one agrees with this interpretation or not, it is worth questioning why certain threats receive more attention while others do not, and how narratives of fear shape public support for war.
SOURCE:
Davis, Mike. 2026. “Why Trump's Iran strike was necessary and lawful” Fox News.
Nacos, Brigitte L., Yaeli Bloch-Elkon, Robert Y. Shapiro. 2011. “Selling Fear. The Not So Hidden Persuaders” in Selling Fear : Counterterrorism, the Media, and Public Opinion. 28-59 Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
