Although the use of violence and waging war in the 21st century is no longer as easy as in the 18th and 19th centuries, it cannot be said that the option of war has come to an end and that governments will choose peaceful ways of settling disputes. Ironically, war is still the preferred option of governments - at least in the case of the United States – and the United States directly or indirectly has been engaged in all the wars that occurred in the 21st century. However, even the United States is trying to use new forms of war as much as possible – economic war (sanctions), cyberwar, soft war, psychological warfare, etc., instead of the hard war, in order to maintain its prestige, reduce the costs, and increase its efficiency in terms of achieving the goals. The assassination of Martyr General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran, on January 3, 2020, was the first act of using force by the United States in 2020. This event took place after a period of rising tensions between the White House and Iran and Trump’s disappointment with the possibility of sitting at the negotiating table to conclude a new nuclear deal in the run-up to the United States elections. The assassination was carried out at a time when, except for a handful of governments, other countries refused to approve it, sparking a wave of criticism and protests inside the United States; because it was a clear violation of all international laws and an example of state terrorism committed by one of the claimants of defending human rights and international laws in the world.
Trump’s anti-Iranian actions were not limited to the above-mentioned crime, and the United States carried out a series of psychological operations to reduce the destructive effects of this assassination, preserve United States’ prestige, legitimize the action, and gain the support of other countries. This psychological operation was especially carried out via Donald Trump’s tweets and interviews in which he explained the motives behind the assassination.
Psychological Warfare Tactics
The most important tactics the United States employs in psychological warfare against Iran include:
Creating a Supposed Enemy
The first step in waging psychological warfare against the opposition groups and individuals is to create a hostile image of them in such a way that observers and audiences realize that fighting against that supposed enemy is a must. According to Rufen, “always having a hypothetical enemy can justify the actions of the other side and provide the basis for any action. Employing this method can unite the people.”
This was a stage that the United States had resorted to long before the assassination of Martyr General Qasem Soleimani. By creating terms such as “destabilizing the Middle East,” “destructive actions,” and “interfering in the governance of neighbouring countries,” Washington sought to pave the way for the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. In the next stage, the United States imposed sanctions on this military institution. In the third phase, military action was chosen and the highest Iranian military official, who played a leading role in promoting Iran’s policies in the region, was assassinated. The wording of Donald Trump’s remarks at his press conference in Florida illustrates this tactic: “We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war. The Iranian regime’s aggression in the region, including the use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbours, must end and it must end now.”
Labelling
In the labelling method, an attempt is made to give positive and negative meanings and connotations to different words and they are attributed to individuals and institutions. Sometimes the purpose of this action is to condemn an idea, thought, or group, without arguing for their conviction. Although the United States used various labels against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the same tactic was used for Martyr General Soleimani. To justify the assassination operation, Trump tweeted on January 3, 2020: “He was, directly and indirectly, responsible for the deaths of millions of people, including a large number of protesters who were killed in Iran itself.”
Demonization
In the demonizing method, each side of the conflict tries to present an inhuman image of the opponent through the psychological operation. In their opinion, this action not only challenges the legitimacy of the enemy but also justifies using violence.
Referring to Martyr General Soleimani, Trump used the words such as “monster,” “terrorist,” “butcher” and “Soleimani’s evil crimes.” Likewise, addressing the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Saddam, the George W. Bush administration had used the same terms to justify the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, with these words, Trump turned the world into two sides of “good and evil” introducing himself as the saviour of the world who would eliminate “evil.” He said: “He was a monster. He is no longer a monster; he is dead. He was planning a very big attack and a very bad attack for us and others, and we stopped him.”
Three different tactics of psychological warfare have been used in Trump’s remarks simultaneously: on the one hand, the United States is using the “mythologizing” tactics in its fight against terrorism and is trying to pretend that it has taken a great and fundamental step. On the other hand, while employing the tactic of “the nominal unity,” it has used the words in the plural form such as “we” to indicate that there is unity between the United States and the rest of the world and that they support the United States actions.
Spreading Disunity
Spreading disunity is one of the most well-known methods of psychological warfare by which the target audience is subject to receive information on the basis of creating mostly false factions and divisions in order to reduce its capacity and power.
For example, after the terrorist operation, Trump stated in an interview: “He was, directly and indirectly, responsible for the death of millions of people... including the recent large number of protestors killed in Iran itself... While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!”
However, the actions and views of Martyr General Soleimani show the opposite, and the widespread presence of the people at his funeral and their comments on the incident reject that claim.
Projecting
By assassinating Martyr General Soleimani the United States played a dangerous game in the region. However, the day after the incident, Trump, while employing the method of projection in his rhetoric, said: “We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.” Nonetheless, his opponents believe that he is the one who has started this dangerous game.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described Trump’s move as “provoking further dangerous escalation of violence” and Senator Tom Udall said that Trump’s order brought the United States “to the brink of an illegal war with Iran.” Also, Chris Murphy pointed out that Trump is escalating tensions with Iran and “bringing the United States closer to the brink of a potentially devastating war in the region which neither has a reason nor the congressional authorization.”
The Big Lie
The big lie tactic that is still widely used by the media, is mainly employed for intimidating the opponent or even the public opinion. The United States employed such a tactic after the assassination of Martyr General Soleimani. Accordingly, the United States government claimed that Iranian citizens are not upset by the martyrdom of their military commander. Trump falsely claimed that the assassination of Martyr General Soleimani had brought great benefits to the American people and many countries, and the Pentagon also called it a “decisive defensive action.” Nonetheless, this assassination only contributed to the realization of United States goals in the region and Trump’s agendas, and even it caused twelve percent of Americans to feel less secure.
In the view of some political analysts, “a set of shameful and contradictory justifications” were presented for the assassination and brought the two countries closer to a violent confrontation in the last fifteen years.
Exaggeration and Magnification
Exaggeration and magnification refer to the false expression of the military, economic, political and cultural power of a country in the face of a potential threat to deter the other party from carrying out any dangerous action. In this tactic, governments, individuals, and groups claim possessing capabilities that either might not practically be possible to be utilized or would not be as efficient and effective as stated. After the assassination of Martyr General Soleimani, one of the possibilities that were raised was that Iran would respond to the United States’ military action. In contrast, Trump sought to show that the United States’ military strength is such that it would prevent Iran from taking any retaliatory measure and that the Iranians basically lack the courage to do so. He tweeted: “The United States just spent two trillion dollars on military equipment. We are the biggest and by far the best in the world! If Iran attacks an American Base or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way... and without hesitation!”
“If Iran strikes any Americans or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites, some at a very high level and important to the Iranian culture,” he posted to Twitter.
All these statements were made while Iran fired missiles at two United States military bases in Iraq and the United States did not react.
Downgrading
The tactic of downgrading, which is the opposite of exaggeration, is one of the techniques one used when facing the threats of the opponents and rivals in order to downgrade their power and capabilities and exaggerate his. This method is employed when psychological operations cannot reject or discredit the enemy’s propaganda, or when the activists in this field want to maintain their credibility.
A clear example of this tactic is Trump’s remarks about Iran’s retaliatory operation because of the assassination of Martyr General Soleimani. Trump referred to $2 trillion worth of United States military equipment in order to compare it to Iran’s military budget, which is much less than the United States’ defence budget. Furthermore, after Iran’s military operation, the United States tried to pretend that it has been insignificant by pointing out that no American soldiers were wounded or killed.
“All is well! Missiles were launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties and damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well-equipped military anywhere in the world, by far!” Trump tweeted.
Humiliation and Weakening
By using the tactic of humiliation and weakening, an attempt is made to strengthen the morale of the forces on the one hand, and demoralize the opponent on the other. This is done through a set of psychological methods. For example, in his first reaction to the assassination of Martyr General Soleimani, Trump tweeted a photo of the American flag. A photo that expresses the pride and honour of the American people. In the next series of tweets, he tried to humiliate Iranians by noting that although they are good at negotiation, yet, on the battlefield, especially when the United States is involved, they are weak. “Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!”
In this regard, the United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also warned that “the next attack on the Americans or United States’ allies will be answered with a decisive decision.” Despite all the humiliation and threats, Iran retaliated and the United States could not react. Moreover, calling Iran’s retaliatory measure in targeting a United States military base in Iraq a heavy blow to the artificial superiority of the United States, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution maintained that the main punishment (for the United States) will be expulsion from the region.
Limited Dissemination of Information
Employing this tactic, the United States disseminated limited information about the Iranian ballistic missiles hitting Ayn al-Asad Air Base on January 8, 2020. “No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by Iran, we suffered no casualties,” Trump initially said. A few days later, the United States Department of Defence spokesman Jonathan Hoffman announced that 8 United States soldiers have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury because of the Iranian missile attack. Nine days later, this number exceeded 11, who had been taken to medical centers in Germany and Kuwait.
Later on, Trump, at a news conference in Davos, Switzerland, said: “I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things, but I would say and I can report it is not very serious. I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen. I have seen people with no legs and no arms.”
This figure later increased to 34 and then to 64. The Pentagon, in a statement, confirmed that 109 United States soldiers had been diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury. However, the report acknowledged that “the United States military had said to expect an increase in numbers in the weeks after the attack because symptoms can take time to manifest and troops can sometimes take longer to report them.”
This method of disseminating information was employed while some Iranian sources stated that at least 70 Americans were killed and about 200 were wounded. Also, other sources claimed that “143 United States soldiers were killed and 538 were wounded.”
Reference: The Journal of Defence Policy. Vol 28, No 110, Spring 2020, Pp 149-175.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments