The confrontation between the United States and Iran is commonly portrayed through images of missile launches, drone strikes and naval manoeuvres in the Gulf. However, an equally significant dimension of the conflict is unfolding in the realm of perception. Increasingly, the struggle is being shaped by psychological warfare, where narrative, deterrence and political signalling influence how leaders, populations and allies interpret events and calculate their next moves.
Psychological warfare focuses on shaping perception rather than solely achieving battlefield victories. By influencing public opinion and elite decision-making, governments can undermine opponents, strengthen domestic legitimacy and deter escalation. In the US–Iran confrontation, both sides are attempting to project strength through public messaging and strategic communication aimed not only at each other but also at audiences across West Asia and the wider international community.
Statements by Donald Trump illustrate how rhetoric can function as strategic signalling. Reports have indicated that Trump told aides he would consider supporting the killing of Mojtaba Khamenei if Iran refused to comply with American demands. Even if such threats never materialise into action, they introduce uncertainty within Iran’s political leadership and convey that Washington may be willing to escalate far beyond conventional pressure. Psychological strategy often relies on this ambiguity, making adversaries question the limits of escalation.
Trump’s public messaging has also reflected controlled ambiguity. At one point he suggested that the conflict was nearly over, only to later declare that the United States had not achieved enough and would continue until Iran was decisively defeated. Such contradictory signals can complicate an adversary’s ability to predict policy decisions or military moves.
Iran has responded with its own messaging campaign. Officials linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have asserted that Tehran will determine how and when the conflict ends. By framing itself as the actor controlling the timeline, Iran seeks to project resilience despite intense military and economic pressure.
The strategic importance of psychological warfare is particularly visible around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Threats regarding the closure or disruption of the waterway can immediately affect global markets. Trump warned that if Iran attempted to block the strait, the United States would retaliate with overwhelming force. Iranian leaders responded with their own warnings, suggesting that the waterway could either become a corridor of prosperity or a passage of suffering for adversaries.
Such messaging is aimed not only at opposing governments but also at global investors, energy markets and regional states. Even limited suggestions of disruption in the strait have pushed oil prices higher and created uncertainty for energy companies. This illustrates how words and signals alone can produce strategic consequences comparable to military action.
Narrative control also plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions of battlefield events. Reports of a missile strike near a school in the Iranian city of Minab initially generated confusion over responsibility. Trump remarked that the weapon involved was used by multiple countries, subtly introducing doubt about the source of the attack. Later reporting by The New York Times indicated that a US investigation concluded the strike was likely caused by American forces using outdated targeting data.
Iranian officials attempted to frame the incident as a humanitarian tragedy. Abbas Araghchi circulated images of mass graves and condemned the strike as evidence of civilian suffering caused by the United States and Israel. By highlighting graphic imagery and emotional narratives, Tehran sought to generate international sympathy and diplomatic pressure against its adversaries.
A similar communication strategy followed the US strike on the Iranian warship IRIS Dena. Araghchi described the attack as an atrocity and warned that the United States would “bitterly regret” such actions. The phrase, often used in Iranian strategic rhetoric, serves less as an immediate military threat and more as psychological signalling. By suggesting consequences without specifying their form, Tehran keeps its adversaries uncertain about how retaliation might occur.
Iran has also attempted to influence regional perceptions through diplomatic messaging. President Masoud Pezeshkian recently stated that Iran had no intention of attacking neighbouring states unless attacks were launched from their territory. The statement appeared designed to reassure Gulf countries that host US military bases while attempting to reduce regional support for American operations.
Washington quickly responded in the narrative domain as well. Trump characterised Iran’s statements as evidence that Tehran had been weakened and was no longer the dominant power in the region. The exchange illustrates how messaging in modern conflicts often targets global perception as much as battlefield outcomes.
Ultimately, psychological warfare allows both sides to exert pressure without immediate escalation. Threats, political messaging and strategic narratives test limits and shape international opinion while leaving space to avoid a broader war. In the ongoing confrontation between the United States and Iran, the struggle to control the narrative of strength, legitimacy and escalation may prove as decisive as the deployment of military forces.
