Since Donald Trump became U.S. president, the Western media’s anti-Iran campaign has suddenly ramped up once more. Labeling the Iranian regime as "undemocratic” and a threat to global peace and security indirectly suggests it needs to be toppled through regime change operations or military action, as the example of Venezuela shows.

The same old story gained momentum in the Western media a few months before the U.S. kidnapped Venezuelan President Maduro and his wife. The U.S. intervention in Venezuela was framed as an effort "for the sake of humanity,” but, at the same time, Trump announced he "will run Venezuela,” with plans executed accordingly. What will happen next? The Iranian Supreme Leader’s arrest in a similar operation, followed by regime change campaigns in Algeria, Qatar, Tunisia and beyond?

Notably, soon after Trump took office, Iran also became a top priority in U.S. foreign policy. Trump surprisingly fired his Iran envoy, Brian Hook, signaling mounting pressure on Iran. Citing a European diplomat, The Jerusalem Post reported, "Israel has decided to attack Iran’s nuclear sites,” while France 24 quoted professor Eberhard Kienle at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), warning that "an administration under Trump may go as far as war with Iran.” The Conversation mentioned Aniruddha Saha, a University of Oxford researcher, who stated, "Trump has few good options to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb.”

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the West and some Middle Eastern regimes have viewed Iran as an "existential threat" to their rule. American leaders frequently labeled Iran an "axis of evil,” framing its presidents as "undemocratic,” "dictatorial,” "anti-Western hardliners,” "mullahs” and a "threat” to Israel and global peace. However, these portrayals changed to some extent when Masoud Pezeshkian won elections, as The Guardian editorial on July 7, 2024, described him as a "moderate president.”

Despite verbal attacks, territorial violations, assassinations and proxy conflicts, the U.S. and Iran have never fought a full-scale war. Both countries are on a collision course, but have consistently found ways to avoid major conflict. The media has played a significant role in both escalating tensions and occasionally fostering normalization.

Scholars have long studied Western media portrayals of Muslims, Islam and Islamic countries, particularly Iran. These analyses demonstrate the relevance of Orientalism in understanding media bias. For instance, Tamara Pearson’s article, "How the Western Media Methodologically Dehumanized Iran Bombing Victims,” and Peter Oborne and David Morrison’s "A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West Is Wrong About Nuclear Iran" offer in-depth analysis of how media narratives escalate tensions rather than reduce them.

On the other hand, the Western media’s advocacy for democracy and human rights goes silent when it comes to Israel committing genocide in Palestine and attacks elsewhere. Western media often depict Iranian retaliation as "attacks,” while Israeli operations in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere are framed as "self-defense.” Similarly, Iranian-backed groups resisting occupation are labeled "proxies,” whereas U.S. and Israeli-backed groups are presented as "moderates.” Western media frequently frames Israeli hostages as victims while portraying Palestinian prisoners as criminals, reinforcing double standards.

Notably, no Western journalist, academic or politician has lost their job for criticizing Iran, while dozens have faced repercussions for criticizing Israel’s policies in Gaza.

Times have changed, and so must sections of the Western media. If today they support the U.S. and Israel in seeking to topple the Venezuelan president or the Iranian regime, will they also turn their back on their own youth who question government actions on fundamental human rights, including the rights to peaceful demonstration, freedom and equality?