Qamar Bashir
The recent escalation surrounding Donald Trump and Iran has unfolded not only on battlefields and in diplomatic corridors, but also in the realm of narratives—carefully constructed, strategically deployed, and globally amplified. At the center of this evolving geopolitical drama lies a striking contradiction: while Washington projects Iran as fractured, leaderless, and internally conflicted, Tehran continues to demonstrate operational cohesion, strategic resilience, and an ability to withstand immense external pressure. This divergence between narrative and reality is not accidental; it is a calculated instrument of psychological warfare.
The claim that Iran’s leadership is divided—torn between moderates, hardliners, and military elites—has become a recurring theme in American political and media discourse. Statements suggesting “confusion,” “infighting,” and “lack of clear leadership” are designed to create an image of instability. The strategic objective is clear: weaken Iran’s negotiating position, sow doubt within its governance structure, and signal to the international community that Tehran is incapable of functioning as a coherent state actor.
However, a closer examination reveals a more complex reality. While differences in political approach undoubtedly exist within Iran—as they do in any political system—these divisions have not translated into strategic paralysis. On matters of national security, sovereignty, and external threats, Iran has historically demonstrated a unified posture. Its ability to respond swiftly to military challenges, reorganize leadership structures after targeted strikes, and maintain continuity in decision-making underscores a system that, while diverse in internal viewpoints, remains cohesive in its core objectives.
This contrast becomes even more significant when placed alongside the internal dynamics of the United States itself. American political life is currently marked by deep partisan polarization, legislative gridlock, and public disagreement over foreign policy decisions. Debates in Congress regarding military engagement, economic sanctions, and executive authority reflect a nation grappling with its own internal divisions. Yet, despite this visible discord, the United States continues to function as a powerful, centralized actor on the global stage.
The parallel is instructive. Internal disagreement does not equate to institutional weakness—neither in Washington nor in Tehran. In both systems, debates, rivalries, and competing perspectives coexist with mechanisms that ultimately produce unified external action. The difference lies in perception: while U.S. internal divisions are often framed as democratic discourse, similar dynamics in Iran are portrayed as signs of systemic collapse.
This asymmetry in narrative serves a broader strategic purpose. By projecting Iran as unstable, the United States seeks to justify its own actions—whether military, economic, or diplomatic—as necessary responses to a dysfunctional adversary. At the same time, it aims to influence international opinion, encouraging allies and neutral states to view Iran as an unreliable partner.
Beyond rhetoric, the conflict has increasingly shifted toward economic warfare. Control over critical global chokepoints, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, has emerged as a central lever of influence. Any disruption in this vital waterway—through blockades, seizures, or military presence—has immediate and far-reaching consequences for global energy markets. The mere threat of instability can drive oil prices upward, disrupt supply chains, and place immense pressure on economies worldwide.
In this context, actions targeting maritime routes are not merely tactical maneuvers; they are strategic signals. They demonstrate the capacity to influence global economic stability and underscore the interconnected nature of modern geopolitics. Both the United States and Iran understand that control over energy flows translates into leverage—not just over each other, but over the entire international system.
At the same time, military posturing continues to play a critical role. The sustained deployment of forces, the reinforcement of regional bases, and the accumulation of advanced weaponry all contribute to an atmosphere of heightened tension. Yet, despite this buildup, both sides appear cautious about crossing the threshold into full-scale war. The costs—economic, human, and political—are simply too high.
Instead, what has emerged is a prolonged contest of endurance. Economic sanctions, cyber operations, proxy engagements, and information campaigns have replaced direct confrontation as the primary tools of conflict. Each side is testing the other’s resilience, seeking to determine who will yield first under sustained pressure.
Within this framework, the narrative of Iranian “infighting” takes on additional significance. It is not merely a description; it is a tactic. By emphasizing division, the United States attempts to accelerate internal stress within Iran, hoping that economic hardship and political uncertainty will lead to concessions at the negotiating table. Conversely, Iran counters this narrative by projecting unity, resilience, and defiance—reinforcing the message that external pressure will not fracture its core.
The interplay between these competing narratives highlights a fundamental truth about modern conflict: perception is as important as reality. In an era of instantaneous communication and global media reach, shaping how events are understood can be as decisive as the events themselves.
Looking ahead, the path toward de-escalation remains uncertain but not impossible. Both nations have strong incentives to avoid a prolonged, destructive conflict. Economic stability, regional security, and global market confidence all depend on a reduction in tensions. However, any meaningful progress will require a shift in approach—from coercion and confrontation to dialogue and mutual recognition.
Crucially, such dialogue must be grounded in parity. Durable agreements are rarely achieved when one side seeks dominance over the other. Instead, they emerge when both parties recognize each other’s core interests and negotiate as equals. This principle is particularly relevant in the current context, where attempts to impose unilateral terms have repeatedly led to stalemate.
In the end, the narrative of division—whether in Iran or the United States—should be understood for what it is: a strategic tool, not an objective reality. Both nations possess complex political systems, internal debates, and competing factions. Yet both also retain the capacity to act decisively when national interests are at stake.
The challenge, therefore, is not to eliminate internal differences, but to ensure that they do not escalate into external conflict. If managed wisely, these differences can coexist with stability. If exploited recklessly, they can become catalysts for deeper confrontation.
As the world watches this high-stakes standoff, one conclusion becomes increasingly clear: the future of U.S.–Iran relations will be determined not by narratives of weakness, but by the ability of both sides to move beyond them—and engage in a process that recognizes strength, sovereignty, and the necessity of coexistence.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd),Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France,Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC. He is living in Macomb, Michigan
