A ‘War’ or an ‘Operation’? Examining Media Bias in Coverage of Iran

Is the US-Iran conflict a “war” or an “operation”? What you think may depend on which sources you read.

On February 28th, 2026, the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran through the campaign “Operation Epic Fury,” initiating the start of the US-Iran war. Since then, the US has spent approximately $25 billion across the first two months of conflict, and biased media reporting has amplified division in perspectives on the war.

AllSides conducted a bias analysis of Iran war coverage from outlets across the political spectrum, reviewing 40 articles across 20 media outlets from Feb 28th – March 6th. We noted several key differences.  Outlets on the left tend to highlight public opinion polls showing disapproval of the war, as well as Democrat criticisms. Outlets on the right tend to highlight Trump and Republicans’ perspectives, and frame disapproval of the war as a form of betrayal.

Key Findings: Media Bias in Coverage Of US-Iran War

• Outlets on the Left emphasized Republican disagreement/debate within the Trump administration, as well as Democrat and public opposition to the war.
• Outlets on the Left and Right both often posted slanted headlines on topics surrounding the US-Iran war.
• Center outlets aligned with the bias of outlets on the left.
• Outlets on the Right outlets emphasized instances of Democrat support or “hypocrisy” over the war in Iran, while emphasizing Republican and public support.

Word Choice Analysis

Outlets on the left and center typically referred to the US-Iran conflict as a “war,” while outlets on the right disproportionately labeled it an “operation.” Interestingly, outlets on the left also made a disproportionate mention of Israel when compared to outlets on the right, potentially indicating a tendency for outlets on the left to emphasize the joint nature of these US-Israel military operations.

RELATED: Iran War: Latest Updates, Bias, and Potential Misinformation

Bias on the Left

Outlets on the left have highlighted doubt over the US-Israel military operations against Iran, both in terms of the purpose of the war and lack of public support. Examples below: 

• CNN (Lean Left), in a piece highlighting a public opinion poll showing 59% of Americans disapprove of Iran strikes, wrote, “The initial support for military action among Trump’s base stands in contrast to opinions among the larger public.””
• The New York Times (Lean Left) also highlighted a lack of public support, writing, “[b]y contrast, Mr. Trump, already historically unpopular according to polls, has so far gained not a bit of support.” 
• USA Today (Lean Left) continues this oppositional framing, writing, “Schwartzman and other retired military chaplains told USA TODAY they worried about the impact of Hegseth’s more narrow religious vision on unit morale and cohesion, saying his efforts stand in stark contrast to how they approached their service.” 

Bias in the Center

Center outlets generally aligned with outlets on the left, including a critical lens of the Trump administration’s military actions.

• Newsweek (Center) wrote the sensational headline, “The 5 Ways Khamenei’s Iran Survival Plan Haunts Trump.”
  • The outlet also published a related piece, labeled Analysis, with the subheading “Saving Face,” attributing Trump's diplomatic posturing as an attempt to “save face” from the initial strikes and mixed support.
• Christian Science Monitor (Center) aligned with Newsweek’s critiques of Trump’s diplomatic posturing, writing that the US was “[c]hoosing war over diplomacy on Iran.”
• The Wall Street Journal (Center) wrote a slightly sensational piece noting how “an attack on Saudi Arabia…[may] mark a dangerous inflection point in the conflict” and pointing to “global oil-supply jitters.”

BBC News (Center) had no notable bias across the time period content was collected.

Bias on the Right

Outlets on the right typically quoted Republican perspectives in headlines or placed their perspectives higher on the page than Democratic positions, showcasing bias by viewpoint placement and bias by omission.

• Daily Caller (Right) published the headline, “‘We’re Not Going To Put Up With It Any Longer’: President Trump Announces ‘Massive And Ongoing Operation’ Against Iran”
• New York Post (Lean Right) quoted Republicans prominently, publishing the headline, “Trump knows Ayatollah is ‘Hitler in a robe,’ Sen. Lindsey Graham says as he defends Iran strikes”
• Washington Times (Lean Right) also quoted the president, writing, “Trump says there will be no deal with Iran except ‘unconditional surrender’”

Contrasting Views

During the content collection period there were several specific stories and angles that outlets across the political spectrum covered or buried. We’ve highlighted some of the more salient stories, where political bias made the largest impact in coverage.

Bias on the Purpose of the Initial Strikes 

Outlets on the left generally criticized the intent and reasoning behind the US-Iran war. 

Associated Press (Left) wrote, “U.S. Intel Did Not Suggest A Preemptive Strike From Iran Before U.S.-Israeli Attacks: Reports” and The Guardian (Left) further emphasized these criticisms, writing, “European allies distanced themselves from Trump’s initial decision to go to war, saying it fell short of the legal threshold of meeting an imminent threat.”

These positions are in direct opposition to the perspectives generally provided by outlets on the right. Washington Examiner (Lean Right), for example, wrote, “US and Israel launch ‘preemptive’ attack against Iran.” Breitbart (Right) generally quoted Republican voices over Democrat perspectives on the reasons for war including a piece quoting Hegseth, US Secretary of War, ‘We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump we are finishing it….’

Bias on the Girls’ School Strike

One of the most salient stories at the outset of the war was the bombing of an elementary school in Iran, which killed approximately 175 people. The contesting narratives over culpability for this strike and involvement of children casualties led to increased media polarization.

Outlets on the left, for example, tended to devote more coverage to this bombing, and carried a sympathetic framing, emphasizing Iranian and critical voices, while generally not providing defenses of the strike, like some outlets on the right did.

• The New York Times (Lean Left) published a piece focusing on on-the-ground perspectives from people in Iran, who spoke of the instability and fear in their lives as a result of the war. It quoted a woman saying, “My children are crying and scared, we are huddling in the bathroom, we don’t know what to do. This is terrifying.” 
• USA Today (Lean Left) highlighted the International Federation for Human Rights’ perspective on the matter and commitment to investigate “alleged violations” of human rights, but forewent inclusion of the Trump administration’s rebuttals, showing omission of viewpoint bias.

Outlets on the right provided limited coverage of the incident in comparison, often including mentions of the school bombing in the middle of larger pieces on the conflict rather than dedicating individual articles to the story – showing bias by information placement and story choice bias. Additionally, these outlets often showed slant, focusing on the fact that Iranian state media reported the incident, which could serve to cast doubt on the validity of the claims. Below are two examples: 

• Epoch Times (Lean Right) mentioned the school bombing halfway through this piece, noting, “The city of Minab, where the girls’ school is located, is also the site of an IRGC base.”
• Newsmax (Right) mentioned the school bombing in the middle of this piece, writing “In southern Iran, at least 85 people were reported killed after a girls' school was struck, and dozens more were wounded, the local governor told Iranian state TV.” 

Notably, some Center outlets only covered the school bombing once, with BBC News (Center) writing, “Inside Iran, panic as strikes hit but for some it's a moment of relief.” As such, prevalence of coverage of this story may not be the strongest indicator of left and right perspectives.

Bias on Who’s to Blame

Outlets on the left framed the conflict as an illegal one, framing Republicans as coalescing and supporting Trump without question, while Democrats keep the president accountable. 

• ABC News (Lean Left) wrote the headline, “Most Republicans support strike as Dems demand answers”
• New York Times (Lean Left) quoted Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian, saying that “…the public gets very angry and disenchanted and turns against the government” when the president doesn’t pre-empt conflict. 

Outlets on the right typically framed oppositional or critical views on the US-Iran war as a form of betrayal or hypocrisy.

• The Daily Caller (Right) wrote, “European Ally Turns Back On US For China Over Iran War,” framing European talks with China as a form of betrayal, while quoting the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs further down in the article – bias by viewpoint placement.
• Fox News (Right) wrote the headline, “53 Dems vote against declaring Iran a state sponsor of terror” and included a list of all Democrats that voted against the resolution. The article also selectively included a quote from one of the few Democrats who voted in favor of the resolution, but not any from the opposition – bias by omission.
• The Washington Examiner (Lean Right) wrote, “‘Hypocrisy’ over Iran military strikes from Democrats: Joe Concha.” The opinion piece noted Obama’s military operations and framed the difference in support from the Democratic party as simply a partisan divide, not a logical one.

While there were notable differences in word choice selection across outlets, other prominent differences included the disproportionate highlighting of one partisan perspective over another and story choice bias. The greatest differences, however, were in event-based coverage. This included coverage on the reasons for conflict, the civilian casualties resulting from the conflict, and the attribution of blame. 

Such differences lead to polarized perspectives on the Iran conflict and can shape reader perspectives on the basis and outcomes of this war. In order to get the full picture use AllSides balanced news feed and follow our latest balanced news updates on the war.

RELATED: AllSides’ Unique Approach to Covering the Iran War

Emanuel Macuixtle is a Policy Analyst and Research Assistant for AllSides. He has a Left bias.

This piece was edited and reviewed by Director of Communications and Bias Services, Julie Mastrine (Lean Right), and Editor-in-chief Henry A. Brechter (Center).