When Words Become Weapons of War

Maaz Hayat

Islamabad: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” George Orwell wrote these words decades ago, yet they remain strikingly relevant in today’s media landscape.

In the modern world, wars are not fought solely with missiles, drones and soldiers. They are also fought through language, headlines and narratives. 

Before military campaigns gain public support, a parallel battle often takes place in the realm of public opinion. In many cases, the struggle to shape perceptions begins long before the first shot is fired.

Language is commonly understood as a tool for communication, used to convey information, ideas and perspectives. During times of conflict, however, language can become a tool of power. It influences how people interpret events, identify victims and perpetrators, and ultimately decide whom to support or condemn. 

The words chosen by politicians, journalists and media organizations can significantly shape public understanding of international conflicts.

The recent tensions between the United States and Iran provide a useful example of this phenomenon. News reports often appear objective and neutral, yet the language used in headlines can subtly guide readers toward particular interpretations. 

Read More: https://thepenpk.com/the-crisis-beneath-the-crisis/

In an age where many people consume only headlines rather than complete articles, these few words carry enormous influence.

Consider a headline published by the BBC: “At least 153 dead after reported strike on school, Iran says.” While the headline informs readers about the deaths, it does not clearly identify who carried out the strike. Instead, it emphasizes the phrase “Iran says,” presenting the information primarily as a claim made by Iran rather than as a confirmed event.

A similar example appeared in The New York Times: “Iran Says Dozens Are Killed in Strike on School.”* Once again, the headline begins with “Iran says.” The casualties are acknowledged, but responsibility for the attack remains unclear. Readers may therefore interpret the report as an allegation rather than an established fact.

Now compare these examples with another New York Times* headline: “9 Killed in Israeli City Near Jerusalem After Iranian Missile Strike.” In this case, responsibility is directly assigned. The phrase “Iranian missile strike” clearly identifies the actor involved. There is no qualifying language such as “Israel says” or “reported strike.”

At first glance, these differences may appear minor. However, subtle linguistic choices can have significant consequences. In one instance, attention is directed toward the source of the information, creating uncertainty. 

In the other, responsibility is explicitly established. Such framing affects how readers understand events and where they place blame.

This observation does not necessarily imply deliberate manipulation by journalists. News organizations often operate under difficult circumstances, relying on incomplete or evolving information.

Read More: https://thepenpk.com/the-politics-of-being-seen/

Nevertheless, language is never entirely neutral. Editors make decisions about which words to use, which facts to emphasize and which details to omit. These choices inevitably influence how audiences interpret the news.

A similar pattern can be observed in broader reporting on Iran. Terms such as “Iranian threat,” “Iran-backed groups,” “Iranian aggression” and “Iran’s destabilizing role” frequently appear in media coverage. 

Repeated exposure to such language can gradually construct a particular image of Iran in the public imagination. Over time, readers may begin to associate the country primarily with conflict, instability and danger, even before engaging with the full context of specific events.

Language becomes particularly powerful when it evokes fear. Fear remains one of the most effective tools in politics because it shapes public attitudes and behavior. 

When audiences repeatedly encounter words such as “threat,” “danger,” “escalation” and “security risk,” they may become more receptive to sanctions, military action or other forms of political pressure. In this way, language can help build support for specific policies and strategic objectives.

Equally important is what language leaves unsaid. Headlines often focus on immediate events while providing little historical background or political context. Complex conflicts are frequently reduced to simplified narratives of good versus bad, victim versus aggressor. 

Although such framing makes stories easier to understand, it can obscure the deeper realities that shape international disputes.

The conflict between the United States and Iran is therefore more than a military or diplomatic confrontation. It is also a contest over meaning, perception and narrative control.

Read More: https://thepenpk.com/oil-war-and-diplomacy/

 Competing actors seek to influence how the conflict is understood, who appears responsible and whose actions seem justified. In many respects, winning the battle for public opinion can be just as important as winning on the battlefield.

For this reason, critical media literacy has become essential. Readers should pay attention not only to what headlines say, but also to how they say it. Important questions deserve consideration: Who is being named? 

Who is not being named? 

Which claims are presented as facts, and which are framed as allegations? 

What information is highlighted, and what remains absent? 

Such questions help reveal the subtle influence of language on public perception.

The US-Iran conflict demonstrates the extraordinary power of words. Language can shape opinions, influence policy debates and affect how entire societies understand the world around them. It can inform, but it can also persuade. 

In today’s fast-moving media environment, the most influential weapon is not always a missile or a drone. Sometimes it is a headline, a phrase or a carefully chosen word capable of shaping the views of millions.

The writer is a student of English Language and Literature at the International Islamic University Islamabad (IIUI).

The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.