America's cognitive war against Iran; A battle for minds after failure

Cognitive warfare, with the aim of weakening the national will and influencing public opinion, has become an important arena in the confrontation between the United States and Iran.

Ambassador of Arjan _ Politics Group _ Hadi Rezaei: In the circumstances that the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced military, economic and political pressures from the United States and the Zionist regime in recent years, a new field of confrontation has become more important than the past. A field in which the main goal is not to occupy the land, but to influence public perception, change society's calculations and create doubt in the national will. Media narrative, disseminating unverified news, contradictory threats, exaggerating the power of the enemy and creating a news vacuum are some of the tools used in this cognitive war; A war that seems to have gained more importance after the enemy failed to achieve its objectives on the hard field.

Wars are no longer decided solely on the land, air and sea fronts. In today's world, the human mind and how it perceives reality has become one of the main battlefields. If in classical war, the goal was to occupy a geographical point or destroy the military power of the other side, in cognitive war, an attempt is made to change society's perception of reality; In such a way that the audience makes a decision that is favorable to the designer of cognitive operations.

From this point of view, part of the political and media developments around Iran cannot be analyzed solely in the framework of diplomatic positions or daily statements of American officials. A series of threats, negotiation proposals, media claims, psychological operations and contradictory narratives have been formed in the media space, one of whose functions can be to measure the society's reaction and influence the calculations of public opinion.

When threats and negotiations become pressure tools at the same time

Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Speaker of the Islamic Council, a few days ago and in his speech before his order, referring to the recent approaches of the United States, emphasized that the era of dictating unilateral demands is over and the Islamic Republic of Iran has clearly declared its position.

Ghalibaf pointed out that the Americans make different statements in the media, stating that on the one hand, they put forward proposals through mediators, and on the other hand, they increase military threats and pressure literature.

This contradictory behavior can be considered as one of the components that can be investigated in the cognitive war; Because when an actor talks about negotiation and agreement in a short distance and then puts the military threat on the table, he confronts the audience with a set of conflicting messages.

The goal of such an approach is not necessarily to convince the audience to a specific proposition; Rather, it sometimes creates a kind of uncertainty and doubt. A society that is constantly faced with conflicting news about the possibility of war, negotiation, sanctions, agreement or escalation may spend a significant part of its mental capacity following these fluctuations.

In such a situation, the main issue for the Islamic Republic of Iran is to make strategic decisions based on the realities on the ground and the practical behavior of the other party, not based on any tweet, interview or comment of an American official.

cognitive warfare; From fake news to exaggerating the power of the enemy

Cognitive warfare doesn't necessarily start with a completely fake news story. One of the most complex methods in this field is combining true and false statements and placing them in a specific narrative framework.

A media may publish real news about an economic or military event, but by choosing the headline, image, order of news release and type of analysis, it will inspire a certain impression to the audience. In this situation, the audience is not necessarily faced with an obvious lie; Rather, it is faced with a narrative that highlights part of reality and omits another part.

Another tool of this war is to magnify the power of the enemy. The continuous repetition of news related to military equipment, troop movements, threats from American officials or the capabilities of the Zionist regime can be done with the aim of creating a feeling of insecurity and helplessness in public opinion.

Meanwhile, the experience of recent military confrontations has shown that calculations based on creating public panic do not necessarily lead to the expected results of its designers. In the face of military and security pressures, the Islamic Republic of Iran has relied on the internal strength and capabilities of the armed forces and has tried to differentiate between "media threat" and "field reality".

American narrative of Iran; Why is the distance between word and action important?

One of the examples that can be investigated is the claims made about the Strait of Hormuz. Bijan Moghadam, an expert on media issues, has raised the question, referring to some American claims about the situation in the region, that if Washington claims to achieve its goals, what does the continuation of threats and military campaigns mean?

This question is important from a media perspective; Because one of the indicators of knowing psychological operations is to examine the distance between "presented narrative" and "observable reality".

If a political actor talks about achieving his goals, but at the same time continues to increase pressure, threats and military deployment, public opinion should pay attention to this contradiction and avoid simple acceptance of ready-made narratives.

Strait of Hormuz is also very important in this context. This waterway is one of the most important routes of energy transmission in the world, and any change in its status can have significant economic and psychological effects on global markets. For this reason, commenting on this region is not just a military issue and has a high capacity for psychological operations and influencing markets and public opinion.

main goal; Erosion of public trust

Cognitive warfare succeeds when society becomes distrustful of official sources of information and, on the other hand, accepts every narrative published on social networks without verification.

In such an atmosphere, even a fake news that circulates for a few hours in cyberspace can leave its mark on the mind of the audience; Even if it is denied later. The reason is clear: the first narrative that forms in the audience's mind about an incident does not simply give way to the second narrative.

Fateme Nourijehangard, an expert on media issues, also emphasized the same issue and believes that in today's conditions, the speed and accuracy of the news should be taken into consideration at the same time; Because the delay in publishing the correct news can provide the opportunity to establish false narratives.

This point is one of the most important challenges of the official media in facing the cognitive war. A media that reacts late has practically left the field of narration to others.

In cognitive operations, news silence does not always mean neutrality. Sometimes the information gap itself becomes a factor of rumor production.

When society does not receive accurate, fast and reliable information about an important incident, cyberspace will fill this void. In the meantime, any person, channel or media can present their narrative as "news".

For this reason, one of the requirements to deal with the cognitive war is the active and professional presence of domestic media. Providing quick, clear and documented information, talking to experts, providing verifiable data and avoiding the publication of sensational news can fill an important part of this gap.

In the meantime, Persian-language media outside the country also try to create a special mental framework for the Iranian audience by using emotional images, selective narratives, focusing on economic and social problems and linking them with structural inefficiency.

Nourijehangard believes that in many cases these networks focus on inciting emotions such as anger, anxiety and worry instead of just providing information, and use the real issues of people's lives to build a political narrative.

Of course, the existence of real problems in society cannot be denied; But the important difference between "problem formulation" and "cognitive exploitation of the problem" is revealed at this point. Professional media should see the problem, report on it and make demands; But cognitive operations attempt to frame the same problem in a way that induces a predetermined outcome to the audience.

hard power; Support for dealing with soft war

One of the common mistakes in the analysis of cognitive warfare is to completely separate it from military power. While these two areas are related to each other.

An enemy who is not able to impose his will in the hard field may try to pursue the same goal from another direction by creating psychological pressure and media operations. On the other hand, having the ability of military deterrence can increase the threat cost for the other side.

From this point of view, the statements of the commanders of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran about the country's defense readiness are not just a military message; It also carries a psychological message: the military threat is not going to go unanswered.

This is where hard power and cognitive power come together. Military power makes it possible to impose costs on the aggressor, and media and persuasive power does not allow the enemy to impose his narrative of the field as the only existing reality on public opinion.

the way to cope; Accurate, fast and documented narration

The Islamic Republic of Iran does not only need to increase its military power to deal with cognitive warfare. An important part of this battle is going on in the field of media, universities, elites, social networks and even people's daily conversations.

The first step is to increase the speed of notification. Correct news that is published late may lose the competition with a fake news.

The second step is to increase the credibility of domestic media. The audience accepts the official narrative when it considers it accurate, documented and reliable.

The third step is to use language that is understandable to the society. The official narrative cannot compete with competing narratives if it is too general, rhetorical, or far from the real issues of the people.