A Sudden Shift in the Western Narrative/From the Drums of War to the Whispers of Negotiation

According to the ANA news agency, until the recent wave of military threats, speeches, and media arrangements in the West, the dominant news line was based on “coercion, pressure, and a show of power and even a military attack by the United States.” However, as soon as the strategic response of the Leader of the Revolution was heard, the tone of the Western media suddenly changed. The threat of attack gave way to the “necessity of negotiations,” and the language of confrontation turned into the language of caution and tactical retreat; a change that is not accidental, but a direct result of Iran’s active deterrence.

Diplomacy with a Velvet Glove

The US behavioral model is not new. At the same time, it sends a message of negotiation and keeps the military threat on the table. This is “diplomacy under pressure”; diplomacy designed to increase the cost of the other party’s decision-making. Washington tries to gain points by creating an atmosphere of threat and legitimize pressure with the promise of negotiation. But experience has shown that this model has repeatedly failed against Iran.

The clear and decisive words of the revolutionary leader were not just a political stance; they were also a strategic message to the enemy and regional friends. This message made Iran’s red lines clear and raised the cost of any military action, even limited, in an open and inexplicable way. After this response, the Western media began to plan “diplomatic paths” instead of threats; a clear sign of the deterrent effect of words and real power.

The change in tone of the Western media reflects a reality on the ground: the military option is costly, uncontrollable, and lacking consensus. The same media that spoke of a “limited attack” until yesterday are now writing about “negotiations” and the “necessity of engagement.” This shift is not out of good faith, but rather an unwitting admission of the ineffectiveness of threats and the inability to impose will.

Israel’s role as a constant actor and troublemaker

At the same time as America’s change of tone, the Zionist regime is trying to sabotage the diplomatic process. Netanyahu’s handing over of “maximum conditions” to the American envoy, from a complete halt to enrichment to the dethronement of Iran’s regional power (as the world media has written), shows that Tel Aviv is not seeking an agreement, but rather a crisis. The Israeli media’s efforts to prevent any understanding are proof that the balance of power has shifted in Iran’s favor.

The United States and its allies are trying to use economic pressure, sanctions, psychological operations, and incitement of internal unrest as a complement to the external threat. But this “strategy of attrition” has been tried and tested for years and has failed. The Islamic Republic has shown that it neither collapses under economic pressure nor retreats under military threats; rather, any pressure leads to the reproduction of power and greater cohesion.

Active Deterrence, the Key to Changing the Equation

But what we see today in the diplomatic and media arena is the product of Iran’s “active deterrence”; a deterrence that makes sense both on the ground and in words. The change in the West’s news line after the threats and the leadership’s decisive response proved that the language of power is still the only understandable language in the international system. Iran changed the equation without firing a shot and dragged the West from the threat phase to the negotiation phase; and this is a strategic achievement that must be preserved and strengthened.