More important than Hormuz

In fact, Trump has taken over and by giving many concessions to Russia in the Ukraine war, in order to consume America for a few days, he has taken gasoline from Putin.

According to Ambassador Arjan's report, Farhikhtegan newspaper wrote: Trump is lost in reality and by giving many points to Russia in the war in Ukraine, he took diesel from Putin in order to consume America for a few days. But every day he confidently repeats that the Strait of Hormuz is open, and he keeps saying this until it becomes the dominant and main narrative about Hormuz. Trump's vocabulary these days is more limited than ever and he repeats three options almost five times a day; Hormuz is open, the war with Iran will end soon, either with an agreement or with war, and thirdly, I don't care about the election, if it is important, the Republicans will win it! Three big lies! Trump is a less talented being; But lying and telling it confidently and repeatedly is honestly a myth.

Mr. or Mrs. Besnet announced two weeks ago that Iran's economy will collapse in 14 days. To achieve this project, he also did things such as intensifying the blockade and starting the air blockade. Today is the end of 14 days, the situation of Iran's economy is not better than 2 weeks ago; But it has not collapsed either; If anything worked in the destruction of Iran's economy, it was neither the intensification of the blockade nor the failed airport project; Rather, the cognitive disturbance created in this psychological operation has worked to some extent. There are many such examples, it can be said that the battle between Iran and America in the eighth month has four pillars; military, economic-resilience, diplomatic and of course cognitive-psychological. We are not exaggerating if we say that the main pillar in the current situation is the last one that the Trump administration is counting on. If they do one unit of action in reality, they do at least 10 units of cognitive work on its effect. In the current situation, Trump, Bessant, Rubio, etc. are pursuing three goals.

First; Influence on the war-scarred American public opinion, according to polls, wants to penalize Trump at the ballot box.

Second; Calculations by Iranian officials who make a calculation error in the dialectic of war and negotiation and give Trump an assist.

third; The effect on the public opinion of the Iranian society that they forget the image of victory in the war, distrust the officials, do not see the successes, disperse and finally prepare for the project of connecting the street and the sky.

But why is the enemy's hope today more than the other three components in the cognitive battle? Apart from the relative technological advantage and the mercenary nature of platforms such as Instagram and Twitter in the service of the American narrative, which is debatable in its place and we do not have much agency in solving it, several internal components are also effective. At the first level, like the attacks of American and Zionist fighters in some days of the war, when sometimes the sky of Iran was defenseless and in the hands of the enemy, these days also, sometimes it seems that the sky is defenseless to persuade public opinion and produce a narrative. It is regrettable that Trump dares to tell lies several times a day and no one answers or even threatens.

On the second level, the existence of some conflicting narratives by the few officials who speak has made the work difficult. For example, during the President's recent visit to New York, we witnessed a brilliant and enviable speech at the United Nations and several thought-provoking interviews that contained contradictory pulses with the power-building speech of Mr. Medicine. This kind of speech makes it difficult to produce a narrative against the enemy's cognitive warfare. The third level is the trust of some political activists inside Trump's narratives and sometimes the continuation of that narrative. Here it is necessary to mention a few examples;

Three days ago, a fake news was published from several unreliable sources that the American security apparatus presented the Zionists with a list of people who must survive the next war in order to agree with the United States. Even with the lowest level of intelligence, it can be understood that the original publication of this news was produced with the aim of creating a rift inside, otherwise why should the order with this level of secrecy basically be the bottom of Twitter? The tragedy is that one of the political-media bloggers who also claims to be a professor creates added value for this news and creates domestic legitimacy for this fake news by cutting a video of martyr Larijani and officially confronts Iran in an ideological battle. The pen of the Zionist war officer has not yet dried up. An apparently Hezbollah media activist inside says that this decision had an internal context and actually accuses the internal forces of complicity with the Zionists in the martyrdom of Raees Ali Delwari Zaman.

In another paragraph, a reformist political activist from an apparently compassionate position to prevent a new war again accuses the country's officials of disrupting the previous understanding and practically completes the narrative of Trumpists who say that Iran is untrustworthy and evil. Look at the depth of the disaster. For people who are ironically from both political spectrums, not only Trump's narrative is relevant and they trust it; Rather, they consider themselves obliged to create a media outlet for his fake news. At the fourth level, the problem comes back to the consumer of the news and the audience of the analyzes at the bottom of the society. The summary of media literacy is that one should look at the content of a news with a critical eye, recognize the beneficiaries of a message and consider their interests in the analysis of the effect of that message. Our default when facing the news of Trump, a media aligned with him and even some media that are not aligned with him, should be mistrust and falseness of the message. Perhaps we are in a time when the protection of our semantic system, which shapes our preference system and ultimately our activism, is more important than the protection of Hormuz.