IRAK PERSPECTIVE

Analysis of Iraqi media coverage reveals a complex geopolitical perspective, marked by geographical proximity and historical ties with Iran. The Iraqi News media outlet adopts an essentially defensive framing of Iran's position, emphasizing Tehran's victimhood rhetoric in the face of what is presented as American-Israeli 'lawless aggression'. This emphasis on Iranian statements at the UN suggests a desire to legitimize Iranian resistance within an international legal framework, reflecting a structural sympathy toward a Shiite neighbor sharing confessional and geopolitical affinities with Iraq.

The tone adopted oscillates between factual and accusatory, particularly visible in the uncritical reporting of Iranian figures (1,300 dead, 7,000 wounded) and accusations of attacks on civilian schools. This approach reveals a significant editorial bias: Iraqi media minimize or completely ignore Iranian actions that triggered this escalation, notably attacks on Gulf territories mentioned only at the end of the article. The silence on American-Israeli motivations and the regional security context reflects a desire to present Iran as a victim rather than as an actor in the conflict.

The narrative framing clearly structures the protagonists: Iran appears as the legitimate defender of its citizens against the 'most anarchic and unscrupulous actors on the international stage'. This Manichaean dichotomy reflects Iraqi domestic stakes, where the Baghdad government must navigate between its alliances with Iran (notably through Shiite militias) and its relations with the United States. Iraqi media coverage thus appears to serve as a sounding board for Iranian narratives, revealing Tehran's influence over Iraqi information space.

Structural biases are multiple: sectarian (Shiite solidarity), geopolitical (opposition to Western hegemony in the Middle East) and security-related (fear of repercussions from a major conflict on Iraqi territory). This convergence of interests explains why Iraqi media favor an anti-Western reading of the conflict, obscuring Iranian responsibilities in regional escalation and presenting the energy crisis as a consequence of aggression rather than as a complex geostrategic issue involving all regional actors.