In the video, Netanyahu invokes the name of Cyrus and refers to issues such as water shortages, urging Iranians to rise up against their government. This goes beyond political posturing. The structure of the message and the deliberate timing point to a calculated effort aimed at influencing perceptions on multiple levels.
Destruction with the Sword of Cyrus
Netanyahu opens with a reference that generates the least psychological resistance in the minds of many Iranians: Cyrus the Great, a monarch with a symbolic place in national narratives and even some religious interpretations. This point of entry breaks down the initial barrier of resistance, increasing the likelihood of the message being absorbed. In the language of psychological warfare, this is called “symbolic cover”—a method that allows a political message to slip into the audience’s mind behind the mask of a cultural or historical authority.
Almost immediately after this seemingly harmless introduction, he moves to the issues of the water crisis and economic hardship. Here, an undeniable reality is used, but it is framed in such a way that only one cause is suggested: government incompetence. In strategic communications, this is known as “selective framing,” which hinges on eliminating complexity and amplifying a single cause so as to steer the audience’s reasoning in the desired direction. Through this, Netanyahu seeks above all to instil in Iranians the idea of a managerial collapse within the government.
By combining “historical pride” with “current deprivation,” the message activates a powerful emotional mechanism. From the perspective of political psychology, when the gap between “what is” and both “what was” and “what ought to be” is emotionally highlighted, latent social anger can quickly transform into overt action. This is the “identity duality” that simultaneously stirs feelings of pride and humiliation. Through it, the Israeli prime minister aims to provoke Iranian frustration and encourage street protests.
A Message with Multiple Aims
The goals of such a message must be considered at several levels. Inside Iran, the chief aim is to undermine public trust and turn passive dissatisfaction into active protest. At the regional level, portraying Iran as a country with deep social fractures can diminish Tehran’s geopolitical weight in the minds of other regional actors. Internationally, such a narrative can help justify increased economic pressure or even limited military action—especially if Western public opinion is persuaded that Iran is on the brink of internal collapse. Within Israel itself, such messages serve another purpose: diverting attention from domestic political and security crises and reinforcing the image of a “strong” leader who retains the initiative against his adversary.
The timing of the video’s release is also no coincidence. Its overlap with rising speculation about escalating security tensions in the region suggests it was designed as a psychological prelude to any possible field operations or acts of sabotage. This synchronization likely aims to produce a combined effect—psychological, media, and security pressure.
Ultimately, Netanyahu’s message—and the repetition of this method by other Israeli officials such as Naftali Bennett, Israel Katz, and Bezalel Smotrich—should be recognised as an example of a composite psychological operation, crafted through a shrewd exploitation of the target society’s identity and psychological components. Countering such actions is not possible through purely emotional reactions or indifference. It requires a two-pronged approach: first, exposing the methods and techniques employed in such messages to blunt their impact on public opinion; and second, genuinely and transparently addressing the very issues these messages exploit, so as to reduce their propaganda value. Only through such a strategy can one effectively resist the engineering of public perception that manipulates both history and crisis.
It may be repetitive to say so, but it is worth recalling that the blood-stained prime minister of the Israeli regime showed in practice what he means by “liberating the people of Iran” during the recent 12-day war against Iran. In that conflict, he was responsible for the killing of over a thousand Iranians—more than four-fifths of them civilians, including children, women, and ordinary people. Beyond this, two years of atrocities in Gaza, which claimed the lives of over 60,000 people, along with the liberal use of starvation and famine as a weapon, offer the clearest possible interpretation of his notion of “freedom” for any people.
NOURNEWS