How Verbs & Adjectives Frame the Israel-Iran Conflict
A war of words
Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind."  - Rudyard Kipling
The choice of language plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions of conflict, subtly favoring one party over another without the reader ever realizing it.
Below is a list of the most common rhetorical techniques.
Active vs. Passive Voice
Headlines such as “Israel Strikes Iran” use active voice, portraying Israel as decisive and in control, implying precision and legitimacy.Â
Conversely, “Israel Hit by Iranian Missiles” employs passive construction, distancing Iran from agency and framing its actions as reactive or chaotic.Â
The active voice for Israel suggests strength and intent, while the passive voice for Iran can imply aggression without clear responsibility, subtly diminishing its legitimacy.Â
Adjective Bias
Who controls the vocabulary controls the conversation  - Anonymous
Adjectives further skew perception. Israel's actions are described with terms like “precise,” “targeted,” or “defensive,” suggesting restraint and moral clarity. For example, a CNN report might describe an Israeli operation as a “strategic strike on Iranian military targets.”Â
In contrast, Iran's actions are labeled with adjectives like “provocative,” “hostile,” or “retaliatory.” These descriptors paint Iran as reckless or vengeful, while Israel appears calculated and justified.Â
Word choices tap into cultural biases, aligning Israel with Western values of order, and Iran framed in the perceived instability of the East.
Context Counts
“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” - George Orwell
Reports emphasize Israel's strikes as responses to “Iranian aggression” or “proxy threats” from groups like Hezbollah, providing context that justifies Israel's actions. A BBC headline might read, “Israel Targets Iran After Missile Threats,” implying a defensive necessity.Â
Iran's actions are often decontextualized, with less mention of prior Israeli operations or regional dynamics, as in “Iran Launches Attacks on Israel.” This selective framing obscures Iran's motivations, making its actions seem unprovoked.
Political Subtext
“Give a dog a bad name and hang him.”  — Proverb
Western outlets, aligned with U.S. and Israeli interests, often portray Israel as a democratic ally under threat, using language that evokes sympathy.Â
Iran, labeled a “rogue state,” faces harsher descriptors that align with its adversarial status. Posts on X have noted this disparity, with some users arguing that Israel's actions are framed to “make Iran look like the villain,” even when both sides engage in similar military tactics.
LabelingÂ
“Only Democracy in the Middle East”Â
Western media regularly labels Israel as “the only democracy in the Middle East,” a common media trope that emphasizes Israel's democratic governance to contrast it with regional adversaries like Iran.Â
Yet, the same news outlets print headlines of elections in other Middle Eastern countries.
“Rogue State”
Western politicians frequently call Iran a “rogue state”, framing Iran as a destabilizing force in the Middle East. This reflects a historical Western narrative of Iran, and many other eastern nations, as a threat to global order. Propaganda that the West is “civilized” and the East is chaotic and barbaric, dates back to Roman times.
Different Verbs and Adjectives for the Same Action
Below are the most common verbs and adjectives used in the Western media over the previous decade to describe similar actions taken by Israel, vs those conducted by Iran.
Conduct an Airstrike
- “Strike, Execute, Target” vs “Bombard, Unleash, Launch”
- “Targeted, Defensive, Precise” vs “Hostile, Aggressive, Provocative”
Respond to an Attack
- “Retaliate, Defend, Counter” vs “Retaliate, Escalate, Strike”
- “Measured, Restrained, Justified” vs “Reckless, Retaliatory, Destabilizing”
Develop Military Capabilities
- “Develop, Enhance, Fortify” vs “Pursue, Build, Stockpile”
- “Advanced, Innovative, Necessary” vs “Dangerous, Illicit, Threatening”
Engage in Regional Influence
- “Secure, Influence, Stabilize” vs “Interfere, Meddle, Expand”
- “Democratic, Allied, Resilient” vs “Rogue, Subversive, Menacing”
June 2025Â Conflict
CNN's coverage of Israel and Iran's strikes this week demonstrates all of the techniques described above. Can you spot them?Â
Final ThoughtsÂ
The use of active voice, favorable adjectives, and selective context in news creates a narrative. While subtle, linguistic choices shape public opinion in the Israel-Iran conflict.
About the Creator
Scott Christenson🌴
Born and raised in Milwaukee WI, living in Hong Kong. Hoping to share some of my experiences w short story & non-fiction writing. Have a few shortlisted on Reedsy:
https://blog.reedsy.com/creative-writing-prompts/author/scott-christenson/
Keep reading
More stories from Scott Christenson🌴 and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Trump Declares National Emergency to Tackle 5-Year-Old's Mexican Flag
WAUSAU, WI — President Donald Trump announced a full-scale invasion of Wisconsin Tuesday to apprehend a 5-year-old boy spotted riding a tricycle adorned with a Mexican flag. The operation, code-named “Operation Freedom Pedal,” mobilizes an elite team of US Marines to “secure the border state of Wisconsin from this clear and present danger.”
By Scott Christenson🌴7 months ago in The Swamp
U.S. Navy Is Chasing Several Oil Tankers in the Atlantic
The United States Navy has reportedly deployed several ships to monitor and intercept a group of oil tankers moving through the Atlantic Ocean. While details remain limited, officials suggest the operation is part of a broader effort to enforce international maritime regulations, prevent illegal shipments, and protect global energy security. The unfolding situation has drawn attention from governments, energy markets, and security analysts, who are closely monitoring the implications for both geopolitics and global commerce. The Tankers and the Operation The vessels in question are reportedly a mix of large oil tankers carrying crude from various regions. The U.S. Navy’s engagement suggests concerns over either regulatory compliance or the potential diversion of energy resources to unauthorized destinations. Sources indicate that the Navy is coordinating with allied forces to track the vessels' movements, ensuring that they do not enter restricted or sanctioned areas. The Atlantic Ocean has long been a critical corridor for global energy trade, connecting major oil-producing regions in Africa, South America, and the Middle East with consumer markets in Europe and North America. Interceptions in these waters are rare but significant, signaling that authorities have intelligence about potentially illegal or high-risk shipments. Why the Navy Is Involved Naval involvement in tracking commercial tankers is not standard procedure, but it is sometimes necessary when there are concerns about sanctions violations, smuggling, or threats to international security. According to maritime law, coastal states can monitor vessels in their territorial waters, but operations in the open ocean often require coordination with international partners. In this case, the U.S. Navy’s pursuit appears to be preventive, ensuring that the oil shipments are properly documented and that no vessels are breaching international sanctions regimes. Analysts note that such actions also serve a political purpose, sending a clear message to entities attempting to bypass regulations that the U.S. and its allies are vigilant about maritime commerce. Global Energy and Market Implications The news of naval activity around oil tankers has caused ripples in global energy markets. Even a temporary disruption or the perception of restricted supply can trigger fluctuations in oil prices. Traders are closely watching the movements of the vessels and awaiting official statements on whether the tankers are carrying sanctioned cargo. Energy analysts emphasize that the Atlantic is a high-traffic route, and any incident involving naval forces and commercial ships could have cascading effects. Supply chain logistics, insurance premiums for shipping companies, and regional energy security all hang in the balance while the Navy conducts its operation. Potential Geopolitical Dimensions Observers are also evaluating the geopolitical context. The tankers’ origins, destinations, and ownership may have implications for ongoing international disputes, sanctions enforcement, or regional conflicts. Past incidents involving tanker interceptions have highlighted the sensitive nature of global energy politics, where control over resources and adherence to regulations intersect with national interests. Some experts suggest that the Navy’s proactive approach may also reflect broader U.S. concerns about rival nations or non-state actors attempting to exploit maritime trade for economic or strategic gains. By tracking and potentially detaining tankers suspected of irregular activity, the U.S. is reinforcing its role as a global maritime enforcer. Challenges of Maritime Enforcement Enforcing regulations across vast oceans presents numerous challenges. The Navy must rely on a combination of satellite tracking, intelligence reports, and aerial surveillance to locate and follow multiple moving vessels. Communication with ship crews, coordination with international authorities, and adherence to legal protocols are all critical to ensuring the operation proceeds without escalating into conflict. Experts note that such operations require balancing assertiveness with diplomacy. Intercepting commercial ships on the high seas can be controversial, especially when there is ambiguity over compliance or ownership. The Navy’s careful approach is aimed at preventing misunderstandings while maintaining the credibility of international maritime law. Looking Ahead As the U.S. Navy continues to track these oil tankers, the global community watches closely. Official statements from the Department of Defense or the State Department may provide more clarity on whether the tankers are violating regulations or if this is a preventive security measure. Meanwhile, shipping companies and international markets remain alert to any developments that could affect the flow of energy or maritime commerce. Ultimately, this situation underscores the strategic importance of maritime security in today’s interconnected world. The Atlantic Ocean, a vital artery for energy and trade, continues to be a theater where law, geopolitics, and commerce intersect. The Navy’s ongoing operation is a reminder that securing these waters is not just about military presence but also about maintaining trust, order, and stability in the global energy system.
By Fiaz Ahmed 3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (2)
All planned by the media to paint one in a more pleasing light of course.
Very nice. Language analysis as well as choice of images used is an excellent way to identify the clear bias and agenda the media usually claims to not have.