Iran's Victory Over Ba’athist Regime Propaganda and the Western Media's Turn in the Sacred Defense

Western geopolitical interests led media outlets such as the BBC and the New York Times to portray the Ba’athist Regime of Iraq's invasion as a normal "border conflict" in the early years of the Sacred Defense, but in the end, Iran's legitimacy triumphed over the biased news policy of the Western media.

News ID: 86699

Date: 22 September 2025 - 08:55

TEHRAN (Defapress) - The Sacred Defense, as one of the most epic chapters of Iran’s contemporary history, stands as a symbol of the Iranian nation’s all-out resistance against the aggression of Saddam’s Ba’athist regime. This eight-year war, which began in September 1980 with Iraq’s surprise attack on Iranian territory and lasted until August 1988, not only put the faith, unity, and perseverance of Iranians to the test but also had wide repercussions internationally.

During this brutal war, global media, especially Western outlets such as The New York Times, BBC, and The Washington Post, played a central role in shaping world public opinion. These media, under the influence of Western geopolitical policies, presented narratives that were often biased and unjust.

Open Support for the Aggressor and Ignoring the Victim

In the early years of the war, Western media, largely influenced by the anti-Iranian policies of the United States and its allies, offered one-sided and biased coverage. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution in February 1979, Iran was portrayed as a “revolutionary threat” and a symbol of “radical Islamism” to the world. Capturing the U.S. embassy crisis in Tehran (1979–1981) further reinforced this image.

In contrast, Saddam, as a secular dictator and a potential Western ally against the spread of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, enjoyed significant media support. For example, the BBC’s initial reports in September 1980 described Iraq’s assault as a “border conflict rooted in historical disputes,” with no mention of the Ba’athist regime’s blatant aggression against Iranian territory. In this inverted narrative, the media sought to portray Iran as an “ideological aggressor” exporting revolution and destabilizing the region, while presenting Iraq’s modern army as the “victim of Ayatollah Khomeini’s ambitions.”

This deliberate bias stemmed from the geopolitical interests of Western countries. By providing Iraq with financial, military, and intelligence support, including the sale of chemical materials used to produce weapons of mass destruction, the West turned the war into a tool for weakening the newly established Islamic Republic. In the fall of 1980, The New York Times labeled Iraq’s early gains in cities such as Khorramshahr and Abadan as “strategic successes,” while describing Iran’s counteroffensives as “brutal and inhumane assaults.” This double standard not only ignored justice but also downplayed Iraq’s early crimes, such as the bombing of Iranian civilian cities.

Likewise, The Washington Post between 1980 and 1982 focused on the “Iranian threat to Gulf security” and praised Saddam as a “decisive leader confronting fundamentalism.” Its coverage, while ignoring Iran’s popular mobilization, emphasized “the use of children on the front lines” and depicted Iran as a “backward and fanatical” nation.

Nevertheless, scattered reports of Iranian civilian casualties planted seeds of criticism in the minds of audiences and evoked hidden sympathy for “ordinary Iranian people” in Western public opinion. This stage laid the groundwork for the moral failure of Western media, which had prioritized political interests over truth.

Exposing Ba’athist Crimes and Sympathy with Iran

As the war dragged on and the Ba’athist regime’s crimes became undeniable, Western media narratives gradually shifted. The turning point came with Iraq’s systematic use of chemical weapons, beginning in 1983, which killed thousands of Iranians. In March 1988, The Washington Post reported that while the U.S. condemned Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, there were also claims of limited use by Iran. This reporting transformed Saddam from a “decisive leader” into a “war criminal,” intensifying public pressure. From 1985 onward, BBC reports emphasized “the horrific nature of chemical warfare” and aired images of Iranian victims, an event that significantly contributed to portraying Iran as an “innocent victim.”

In 1988, after Iraq’s chemical attacks on Halabja (in Iraqi Kurdistan) and Sardasht (in Iran), the world’s media triggered a wave of global condemnation. In March 1988, The New York Times reported Iran’s accusations that Iraq had killed thousands of Kurdish civilians with poisonous gases. These reports, coupled with harrowing images, built a deadly narrative of “Saddam’s crimes” that challenged the West’s support for Iraq.

Thus, Iran’s media portrayal shifted from “deranged radicals” to “a nation resisting aggression.” Analytical reports of the 1980s in outlets such as The New York Times praised Iran’s popular mobilization as a “symbol of national unity and sacrifice,” while describing Iraq’s army as a “dictatorial repression machine.” For example, when Iran accepted UN Security Council Resolution 598 in July 1988, The New York Times called it “Tehran’s moral victory,” since Iran had resisted until the last moment despite Western pressure and sanctions.

This 180-degree media shift was driven by anti-war movements in Europe and the U.S., as well as human rights activists who, focusing on Iranian victims, dubbed Saddam “Chemical Saddam” and forced the media to reconsider the facts. Comparative narratives grew stronger: Iran, emphasizing legitimate defense and human values, emerged as the “hero of resistance,” while Iraq’s image, tied to terrorism and minority repression, was reduced to an “empire of evil.” This transformation not only revealed Saddam’s media defeat but also proved the superiority of Iran’s narrative on the global stage.

Iran’s Moral and Media Victory

A comparison of Western media narratives exposes a deep duality. In the early coverage, Iran was depicted as an “existential threat to the West” and Iraq as a “strategic ally.” But the exposure of Ba’athist crimes, from chemical bombings to the Kurdish genocide, shattered this balance. Through these evolving narratives, Iran came to be portrayed as a symbol of resistance against dictatorship.

From an analytical perspective, this shift reflects the failure of Ba’athist propaganda. Despite Saddam’s heavy investment in Western media, such as paying journalists to produce biased reports favoring the Ba’athist regime, he could not conceal his horrific crimes. By contrast, the simplicity and sincerity of Iran’s narrative, emphasizing defense of homeland, Islam, and human values, won public opinion.

This comparison highlights Iran’s moral superiority, stressing that despite harsh sanctions and international isolation, it mobilized millions and sacrificed one million martyrs and wounded. Western media, initially inclined toward the Ba’athist regime of Iraq, were ultimately forced to acknowledge reality. This established Iran’s media victory. The Sacred Defense was not only a hard military struggle but also a media battle that, despite blatant distortions, achieved victory by pursuing truth and making the voice of its oppressed people heard worldwide.