Iran’s deadliest weapon was never on the target list.
The allies dismantled Iran’s military infrastructure, but left untouched the narrative engine designed to end wars by breaking democracies from within.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by Guy Goldstein, a third-generation Holocaust survivor.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
The allied campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran mapped air defenses, missile batteries, nuclear facilities, and command nodes. It has been called a success by all of those kinetic metrics by many experts, and has been rightfully called so. It degraded all of them.
However, the campaign failed to map, target, or even classify as a military capability the 50-plus IRGC-funded content production studios whose output, 40 days into the war, did more damage to the allied war effort than every missile Iran has launched combined.
Despite having watched Hamas execute a paradigm-defining success in cognitive warfare against Israel. Despite seeing the catastrophic political and reputational costs that Israel was forced to pay for fighting a justified and defensive war. Despite having seen the culmination of the strategy that Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” has been developing, refining, and deploying for decades.
The fact that Iran would do this was not something we needed to infer, or assume, or guess. We knew.
A Johns Hopkins University anthropologist named Narges Bajoghli embedded inside these production houses for a decade and published her findings through Stanford University Press in 2019. The U.S. Naval War College reviewed the book in 2023. Iran’s supreme leader said publicly that media is more effective than missiles, planes, and drones. The allies knew all of this and built their campaign anyway without a single cognitive target on the list, because military doctrine still treats the cognitive domain as secondary.
We now face the question: What if what they failed to target was Iran’s most consequential layer of defense?
Iran’s air defenses failed to shield its missile program. Iran’s missile program failed to shield its nuclear program. Yet Iran has not surrendered. Domestic and international pressures have been mounting on the United States to reach a compromise with Iran.
Wrapped around all of it was a cognitive warfare infrastructure integrated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, staffed by a generation that grew up online, funded at the state level, and designed for a single purpose: to degrade the political will of any democracy that attacks Iran.
While Iran’s rocket air defenses went silent, and its rocket launchers were more nuissance than existential threat, its cognitive warfare machine was working in overdrive — despite the two-month-long nationwide internet blackout affecting the rest of Iranians.
That layer had been in development for two decades, tested through proxies, refined with each deployment. American historian and author Richard Landes identified the earliest experiments and named them “Pallywood” in the early 2000s: staged footage from Palestinian territories entering Western media cycles as fact.
From 1982 to 2000, Hezbollah built on the principle during Israeli military occupation in southern Lebanon, targeting the Israeli home front with content designed to erode public tolerance for the military presence. After 2006, the terror group pivoted to intimidation, constructing a perception of strength so effective that it deterred Israeli action for most of the following decade. The production values evolved. The insight stayed constant: The audience’s mind is the terrain that matters.
October 7th was the paradigm shift. Hamas had been escalating for years, from genocide accusations during the First Gaza War in 2008 and 2009, to the first coordinated cognitive-kinetic front in 2021, where narrative operations ran in parallel with rocket barrages. The October 7th attack was designed from inception to trigger a cognitive campaign whose returns would dwarf the military costs. It worked. Israel paid a political and reputational price out of all proportion to the kinetic threat Hamas ever posed.
The Iranian regime watched all of it. It funded most of it. And it built the infrastructure to deploy everything it learned at a scale none of its proxies could match.
I wrote about cognitive-primary warfare doctrine in August 2025 and discussed it on Canadian lawyer Warren Kinsella’s podcast that same month. Kinsella’s forthcoming book and documentary examine the same phenomenon. After the shock of October 7th had passed, it was the only rational explanation for Hamas’ actions, and it was effective as hell.
What Narges Bajoghli has reported is not a revelation; it is a performance review. The generational shift she documented years ago is the one producing the content. The institutional investment she mapped is the one funding it. The training pipelines she described are the ones staffing the studios. Every algorithmic feed she tracks, across every political demographic, is now collapsing into the same Iranian-produced content.
AI-generated LEGO animations. Fake movie trailers shared by Make America Great Again influencers. Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy videos that plug into American grievances so precisely that Americans share them believing they found them on their own. The Revayat-e Fath Institute is named in open reporting. Its content is distributed by Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs — identifiable, attributable, state-funded, producing at full capacity.
The allies eventually struck the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Iran’s state broadcaster, on March 3rd. The building came down. But the Iranian state broadcaster was not a threat; everyone knew their reruns of Tucker Carlson were just regime propaganda and they weren’t even convincing ordinary Iranians. Meanwhile, the 50 IRGC-funded studios producing AI-generated content for TikTok, Instagram, and Telegram in English, Arabic, and Persian were never touched. The planners hit the target they recognized and missed the one that mattered.
The strategic damage is measurable. American statistician Nate Silver’s polling average has U.S. support for the war at 38 percent, opposition at 55 percent, and the trend is heading in one direction. Pew Research Center found that 59 percent of Americans say the strikes were the wrong decision. Those numbers are not opinions; they are the battle damage assessment for a weapon system the allies refuse to name.
Collapsed public support does not just constrain military operations; it eliminates them as a viable option. The production houses have already achieved their strategic purpose: forcing the commander-in-chief back to the negotiating table on the regime’s schedule, while the regime still holds cards it would not have held a week later. Had the allies been able to operate more aggressively, or for even an additional week, or with European partners who had not themselves been demoralized by the same content, Iran would have come to that table with a weaker hand.
The studios did not need to win a military confrontation; they needed to end it early enough that Iran retained the leverage to dictate terms. That is what a weapon does.
Which raises a question nobody in Washington or Jerusalem appears willing to ask: Given that this capability was known, documented, funded by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and performing exactly as described in published research, should cognitive warfare specialists have been on targeting lists alongside air defense operators and missile battery crews?
The allies targeted Iranian nuclear physicist and scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh because his expertise constituted a component of a nuclear weapons program that had not yet been used. A person whose skills contribute to a weapons capability that threatens mass casualties is a legitimate target, even before that capability is deployed.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ cognitive warfare operatives are further along than Fakhrizadeh ever was. Their weapon is not future; it is operational, deployed daily, producing measurable strategic effects against allied political will right now. If the scientist was a legitimate target for what he might one day produce, the propagandist is a legitimate target for what he is already producing.
So why wasn’t the logic applied?
Because cognitive warfare operatives shelter behind the protections afforded to journalists. The camera is simultaneously a reporting tool and a component of a kill chain. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps designed its apparatus to exploit exactly this ambiguity.
In Gaza, Hamas placed cameras where any military response would detonate a global media event, turning documentation itself into a weapon. Iran industrialized the tactic. Current law and doctrine give cognitive warfare operatives the protections of the press while they perform the function of an artillery battery.
Until that contradiction is confronted honestly, every democracy that goes to war will face an adversary whose most effective weapon system is virtually untouchable.
Hamas/Iran/Hezbolla could not ask for better friends than those in the media. Far more than its terror tunnels, arms, or rockets, the press has been their strongest weapon against Israel.
Can we, America and Israel, take back the narrative machine and/or destroy theirs? And how do we go about doing it? And, how do we create the momentum to re-build our narrative machine and do it? I only have questions, sorry no answers. Thank you for your incisive insights. I appreciate your informative essay. Thank you for writing this article. Am Israel Chai!