After Israel attacked the consular building of the Iranian embassy in Syria earlier this month, killing several people, including two brigadier generals of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, there has been much attention to Iran's retaliatory strikes.
The United States, in particular, has been issuing early warnings through various channels that Iran is about to launch a retaliatory strike against Israel, and some US officials have even "predicted" the timing and scale of the strike.
Of course, some of the "forecasts" are now outdated, but new ones are constantly emerging.
Recently, the media has made entries such as "Iran-Israel conflict" and US President Biden's warning to Iran, which shows that the attention in this regard is not low.
In fact, whether Iran will retaliate against Israel on a large scale, to what extent, when and in what way? This is itself a topic of discussion.
But in terms of the dissemination of public opinion information, we can talk a little more.
This is because the United States can now be said to be "invincible" in the battlefield of public opinion on "Iran's large-scale retaliation against Israel," and this is something that we should pay close attention to in terms of information warfare.
What does it mean to be "invincible"?
That is, whether Iran retaliates against Israel or not, the United States can "win" in the space of public opinion.
Let's talk about the various perspectives of this "win" in advance, and take a precautionary shot for some public opinion issues that may occur!
First of all, if Iran really launches a large-scale retaliatory strike against Israel, then in terms of information warfare, the United States can pull through the draft and say:
You see, the intelligence of the United States is accurate, right?
Note: In its retaliatory strike at the beginning of the year, Iran demonstrated a missile with a range that could cover Israel
It was said that Iran would launch a large-scale retaliatory action against Israel, and it did so, which will once again confirm to the world the accuracy of US intelligence.
But what if Iran doesn't launch a massive retaliatory action?
It's easy to explain.
The press release can be written in this direction:
Because the United States detected the information on Iran's military mobilization in advance and publicized it widely, especially Washington's public declaration of its firm support for Israel's attitude and the mobilization of military forces in the Middle East, and also publicly issued a warning, forcing Iran to finally cancel its retaliation.
You see, if Iran doesn't retaliate, the United States can still "win".
If Iran did retaliate, but on a small scale, the press release can also say that this is because of the warning and deterrence of the United States, which made Iran have to retract its hands, and it did retaliate, which can also prove the accuracy of US intelligence, which is simply "both sides can win".
So far, the United States has not had to fire a single shot or a single soldier, but it has been able to grasp in advance all kinds of "winning" aspects on public opinion issues; in every case, it will have a winning argument, and it can be quite convincing.
There is no fear of media attention at all, and even that the media will not pay attention to it, because this is a high-explosive munition for information warfare, even if the whole world makes headlines about the early warnings and warnings of the United States.
Because the higher the degree of attention, when an incident occurs in the future, the greater the fireworks of this information war, and even if nothing happens in the future, it can be stirred up again.
The battlefield of confrontation between countries has never been just a rain of swords and guns on the surface, and the confrontation between public opinion and information warfare is also crucial.
For example, by grasping the hegemony of global public opinion, the United States can suppress the spread of Israel's actions in Gaza to the greatest extent, and at the same time amplify the spread of Russia's actions in Ukraine.
Think about how much public opinion turmoil was caused by a Bucha incident that is still unknown to this day?
On the contrary, more than 30,000 people died in Gaza, and the storm set off was not as big as Israel's hunting down and killing of seven rescuers from the "World Central Kitchen" some time ago.
And it is no accident that Iran's possible retaliatory strike is highly hyped in the media. Because after setting the agenda, you can "win" in various ways, so why not?
In addition, the heat of public opinion is so high, but it has put Iran on fire.
If you don't fight, you will be cowardly and structured, and it will not be easy to explain to Iran at home, and it will not be easy for a "little brother" to establish his authority; if you really fight, it will be too big and you will not be able to get off the stage, and it will be easy to end at the beginning, and it will be even more embarrassing if you have not fought yet.
On the one hand, they are accumulating ammunition for public opinion warfare and are waiting to "win"; on the other hand, they have suffered a big loss, and the fire is big, and now they are still being roasted, and it is very difficult to fight or not.
We believe that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps must have made a military move in the near future, and must have formulated a retaliatory strike plan, and the United States has indeed detected this information. In the end, it is up to the Iranians themselves to decide whether or not to fight and how to fight, and perhaps we will see Iran do it in the near future.
However, in addition to pure military action, the confrontation of these public opinion spaces that we are talking about now, as well as the gameplay of "making cards and playing cards", are worth noting.