The recent twelve-day war served as a complex stage for hybrid warfare, where the West-Zionist axis orchestrated an unprecedented multi-dimensional assault on Iran's national security by simultaneously employing military, media, and cyber tools. This asymmetric battle can be analyzed through five central features: the calculated tripartite military-media-political coordination of the Zionist regime, America's guiding role as the primary designer of regional scenarios, the targeted narrative-building project of Western media within the framework of cognitive warfare, the hidden communication networks between media institutions and terrorist groups, and finally, the assessment of Iran's defensive capacities against these complex threats. To dissect these dimensions, we conducted an interview with Dr. Majid Farrokhi, a senior security affairs strategist, whose documented analyses provide a comprehensive picture of this hybrid battle.
1. Can Israel's recent attacks on Iran be considered an example of hybrid warfare? If so, which hybrid components were observed in this conflict?
The recent Israeli attacks on Iran can indeed be considered an example of hybrid warfare. This is because the attacks resulted from pre-planned coordination between three main actors: Europe (in the realm of nuclear diplomacy), the United States (as the main guide), and the Zionist regime (in the military sector). This triangle of power laid the necessary groundwork even before the hostilities began and advanced the war in line with their shared objectives. As the German Chancellor stated, Israel undertook the executive role of the "dirty part" of this operation. It is crucial to note that both Western and regional actors are well aware that Israel alone lacks the capability to confront Iran, and without Western support, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Resistance groups could easily erase this regime from the world.
2. Can Israel's actions during this period be considered part of a broader U.S. strategy? What is the evidence for this coordination?
Israel's recent actions against Iran must be seen as part of a broader American strategy executed through trilateral cooperation with Europe and the Zionist regime. This strategic coordination is traceable on several levels. First, at the diplomatic level, a clear example was the statements by Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, during his first European trip, where he explicitly asked the Europeans to activate the trigger mechanism. This request clearly revealed a planned division of labor: Europe assumed responsibility for applying political and sanction pressures, America played the lead role in negotiations, and Israel acted as the military arm of this coalition.
At the operational level, this coordination was clearly visible in the reactions following Israel's attack on Iran. European leaders, including Macron, Starmer, and the German Chancellor, not only supported Israel's action but also justified this aggression by offering seemingly impartial advice for Iran to "exercise restraint." This unified stance was not coincidental but the result of the same premeditated coordination previously evident in Rubio's statements.
In the military dimension, although American officials like Trump claimed to have restrained Israel, these claims were more psychological in nature. The reality is that Israel operates with the full intelligence and logistical backing of the United States, as witnessed in the joint assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists or joint cyber-attacks. The annual $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel and the extensive security cooperation between the two countries is solid proof of this claim.
This trilateral cooperation can be analyzed within the framework of the "War Between Wars" strategy; an approach where Israel, with Western support, attempts to gradually degrade Iran's defensive capabilities without engaging in a full-scale war. Therefore, the recent attacks should be seen as a link in a long chain of coordinated Western pressure against Iran, being executed with precise and planned division of labor.
In analyzing Israel's recent actions, it must be emphasized that this regime is not permitted to act alone. Although the Zionist lobby has significant influence both in the U.S. and over the rulers of Western countries and some other governments, the main decision-making center is undoubtedly in Washington. More precisely, Israel is incapable of any independent action without receiving a green light from America. This reality was clearly observed in the complete coordination between the three sides of the America-Europe-Israel triangle in the recent attacks, where each played a specific role in this shared strategy. Even after the attack, the unified stance of European countries in supporting Israel and advising Iran to exercise restraint confirms this pre-designed coordination. Thus, it can be concluded that Israel's actions are part of a larger American plan executed with European participation.
3. In the 12-day war, how was the narrative-building by Western media (such as focusing on "Israel's invulnerability" after Iran's attack) connected to the theory of cognitive warfare? Did Iran have an effective response to this narrative-building?
During the recent 12-day war, Western media, by executing a coordinated narrative-building project, attempted to present a completely one-sided picture of events. These media outlets, by exaggerating the impact of Israel's attacks and describing them as devastating and decisive actions, while simultaneously belittling Iran's actions and portraying them as weak and inconclusive operations, were clearly operating within the framework of cognitive warfare theory. The goal of this narrative-building was to create an image of Israeli invincibility and psychologically weaken Iran. However, the Islamic Republic, by intelligently utilizing cyberspace and publishing visual documentation of precise missile strikes on strategic targets, managed to challenge this Western narrative. From the third day of the war onwards, the publication of these images was influential not only in regional public opinion but even among Western expert circles, leading to a relative moderation of the initial Western media narrative. This confrontation showed that although the Western media front possesses vast resources, its impact can be reduced with timely and documented actions. However, the need to strengthen Iran's narrative-building capacity internationally remains a strategic necessity.
In analyzing Iran's actions in the 12-day war, it must be acknowledged that although significant successes were achieved in the political and military spheres—including compelling European countries to propose negotiations to stop the war, which indicates the failure of the Zionist regime's military strategies—in the media domain, especially in international media, we were unable to articulate and reflect these successes as deserved. This media weakness persists despite the clear legitimacy of Iran's positions, but conveying this reality to global public opinion faced serious challenges. This issue shows that despite having strong and well-documented content, we need to strengthen international media mechanisms to be able to present a more accurate narrative of the country's capabilities and positions. This historical weakness, which has always plagued our media diplomacy, reveals the necessity for greater investment and more coherent planning in this field.
4. Is there documented evidence of cooperation between Western media and terrorist groups in the recent cognitive war?
In response to the fourth question, I must say that the recent war against Iran was an all-out war by the axis of evil, which used all available tools, including terrorist groups. Although we do not have access to precise information, there is no doubt that part of the casualties and damage inflicted on Iran during the 12-day war was the result of actions by these very terrorist groups who were active in various parts of the country—whether in carrying out direct attacks or in transferring weapons. As time passes and more details are revealed, more definitive evidence in this regard will emerge, but the cooperation of these groups with Iran's enemies in the recent cognitive war is undeniable.
Source: Farhikhtegan