THE IRAN-ISRAEL NARRATIVE: is it true, truth, or a double truth?

Written by Mike Burnard an Analytical Strategist at dia-LOGOS

“For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit.” — Noam Chomsky

Proverbs 20:23 – “The Lord detests double standards; he is not pleased by dishonest scales.”

RIGHTEOUSNESS vs TRUTH

In an interview with News Nation on Sunday, former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, a self-proclaimed born-again and spirit-filled Christian, said that Israel’s attack on Iran “was a righteous act.” Per definition, Pence implied that the attack was one of moral integrity, justice, and adherence to ethical and divine principles. In a biblical sense, it is therefore associated with God’s nature—His perfect justice and holiness. The attack was therefore in line with the perfect and holy will and character of God. Who can argue against that?

Two days later, on June 16, Israeli tanks opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians waiting for food aid in Khan Younis. They weren’t fighters. They weren’t holding weapons. They were starving people lined up for bread. At least 59 were killed. Pence was silent. Was this also a “righteous act” of self-defence? What is the truth, and how do we live in a world that proclaims unadulterated biased opinions and double truths? Or does righteousness only apply to one group?

Firstly, righteousness cannot be understood outside the realm of truth. Both are deeply interconnected concepts, especially in theological discussions. Together, righteousness and truth shape ethical living and moral behaviour. Truth reveals what is real, while righteousness determines how one ought to act in response to that reality. This dynamic plays a significant role in justice, reconciliation, and faith—areas critical to ensure peace in a season of war.

The righteous act that Mr. Pence referred to should therefore be calibrated with TRUTH before simply being accepted as TRUE

TRUE vs TRUTH

The major challenge in observing current events and geopolitical conflicts is discerning between “what is TRUE” and “what is TRUTH”, especially because the distinction can be subtle.

“What is true” often refers to specific facts or statements that align with our understanding of a situation and the framework of our observation. It is objective and verifiable at a particular moment and within a particular context. How we view the war in Iran can contain information that is true, factual, and verifiable, but even though it might be true, it might be void of truth.

Truth carries a broader, non-bias dimension based on principles calibrated with the Source of truth. Jesus did not say “I am true”, He proclaimed “I am THE Truth.” Christian circles have been saturated with conflicting narratives about the war in Gaza and Iran, each claiming to reveal the true aggressor, the real victim, who represents evil, and who is fighting for good. Every report presented its individual version of “what is true”, yet the perspectives often diverge, shaped by bias, theology, and political influence, and lack the truth.

Truth can only be authentic when it is calibrated with the character, the teachings, and the life of Christ, the source of truth. It must hold meaning beyond immediate factual reality. It MUST contain elements of love, forgiveness, compassion, and redemption. If, in our reports, we gloat over the deaths of unsaved souls, regardless of who they are, our information may be factual and TRUE, but the essence does not convey the TRUTH.

A DOUBLE TRUTH

When the same truth is applied differently in different situations, it creates a double standard – or a double truth. Truth, in its purest form, is objective—it remains the same no matter how people interpret it. However, double standards can cloud the truth, complicate how we perceive it, distort how it is communicated, and manipulate how it is accepted in social and political discourse.

We all tend to view events through biased lenses. Think of a football match—when the opposing team commits a foul, it seems obvious and justified to be penalised. But when our own team does the same, we justify or downplay it. This kind of selective perception also affects how people view global conflicts, leading to contradictory judgments. Even though objective facts remain unchanged, bias makes it harder to recognize the truth.

Facts—like scientific laws or historical events—do not change based on personal opinions. However, double standards warp how people prioritize and interpret those facts. For example, two groups witnessing the same Israel-Iran conflict might see Israel as the victim or Israel as the aggressor, depending on their perspectives. The truth itself doesn’t change, but its framing does, creating a double truth.

These inconsistencies often result from selective reasoning, where the same evidence is accepted or ignored based on who is involved or what outcome is preferred. This doesn’t change reality, but it makes truth harder to see, requiring critical thinking to untangle facts from bias.

To navigate a world full of double truths, we must question information critically, compare multiple sources, and stay aware of our own biases. Then, recalibrate, recalibrate, and recalibrate again. Doing so helps us get closer to the objective TRUTH, even when distortions try to obscure it.

If your truth villainises or demonises a group or a nation, you might be sharing true reports, but it will be void of truth. While double standards weaken fair discussions, they don’t erase truth—instead, they challenge us to think more deeply and fairly. They should challenge us to think like Christ.

Here are ten geopolitical double truths that highlight the double standards of Western media in the Iran-Israel conflict.

1) NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES

Despite having no nuclear warheads, Iran faces scrutiny over its nuclear program, even though it complies with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and undergoes frequent IAEA inspections. Yes, fears exist that nuclear weapons in the hand of Iranian authorities can threaten world peace. But what about Israel?

Israel refuses to sign the NPT, rejects IAEA inspections, and maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, despite independent estimates suggesting it possesses 90 to 400 nuclear warheads.

With no comparable international pressure, this disparity exposes a double truth in how nuclear oversight is applied.

2) MILITARY ACTIONS AND SOVEREIGNTY

Western powers often justify Israel’s military actions as “self-defence”, even when unprovoked, while labelling Iran and Hezbollah as aggressors for similar responses. The killing of over 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza and attacks in Lebanon and Iran reflect this disparity. Despite Hezbollah provoking Israel, the disproportionate response goes largely unquestioned. Both sides engage in aggression with little regard for civilians, yet global framing consistently favours Israel, reinforcing a double standard in assessing military conflict.

This contrast highlights the selective application of self-defence narratives, shaping perceptions of regional stability and conflict escalation.

3) MEDIA AND DIPLOMATIC RESPONSE

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the world reacted strongly with sanctions and isolation. Russia claimed self-defence against NATO, just as Israel justified its attacks on Iran as self defence against a nuclear threat. Western media largely rejected Russia’s reasoning but accepted Israel’s.

Watching Al Jazeera and CNN reporting on Iran feels like observing two different wars—each presenting true incidents but neither telling the truth. Critics say this reveals selective storytelling, where some narratives are emphasized while others are ignored. This imbalance in reporting and global response highlights a double truth in how conflicts are framed and understood with Israel always being viewed favorably regardless of how many innocent people die in the process.

4) SANCTIONS AND ECONOMIC PRESSURE

Iran faces harsh economic sanctions from the U.S. and its allies, limiting banking, oil exports, and investments. These sanctions aim to curb nuclear development but also worsen humanitarian struggles, making food and medicine scarce. Meanwhile, Israel has received at least $17.9 billion in military aid from the United States alone despite allegations of human rights violations in Gaza and the West Bank. Reports show thousands of civilian deaths and destroyed infrastructure, yet U.S. support remains unchanged. While the U.S. acknowledges human rights concerns, it prioritizes Israel’s security. This contrast highlights global inconsistencies in policy and raises questions about fairness in international relations.

5) BEING LABELLED AS TERRORISTS

Let’s be brutally honest. This is truth. Killing more than 50 people and injuring 200 more, while waiting near a distribution centre for humanitarian aid in Gaza is as much an act of terrorism as killing party goers in Israel. Hamas is a terrorist movement, Israel has a terrorist regime.

The UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60 (1994) defines terrorism as acts “intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes.”

Hamas’s 2023 attack on Israel, killing over 1,200 people, was rightly defined and condemned as an act of terror. Yet, Israel’s retaliatory strikes in Gaza aimed at provoking a state of terror in the general public, killed over 50,000 people, including 15,000 children, and was framed as self-defence. Iran’s history of terror-related activities led to its global scrutiny, while Israel’s unprovoked attacks on Iran, targeting civilians and leaders, were left unchallenged. This selective framing highlights a double truth, where some actions are condemned while others are praised or excused at best. True accountability demands that all acts of terror—regardless of the perpetrator—are judged by the same measure.

6) THREAT TO CIVILIZATION

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly called Iran and its allies the “axis of evil,” framing Israel’s military actions as necessary to protect civilization from terrorism. He described conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran as a battle against “barbarism led by Iran.” In his U.S. Congress speech, he stressed that America and Israel must stand together against the threat against civilisation.

As a result, Israel’s ongoing military campaigns in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and now Iran has led to the highest number of conflict-related deaths in the world over the past two years.

The non-biased question needs to be asked: Who has become a threat to civilisation and who are the ones enacting deeds of barbarism? If it is true for Hamas and Iran, then certainly the same truth applies to Israel as well.

7) VICTIM AND AGGRESSOR

Since 7 October 2023 Israel has continuously been portrayed as the victim: They were the victims of the 23 October attack – which is true. They were the victims of Hamas – which is true but not the full truth. They were victims of Hezbollah, the victims of the Houthis, and the victims of HTS in Syria. And, now, they are portrayed as the victims of Iran’s dubious nuclear program. Israel, with one of the most superior and advanced armies in the world and the backing of the largest military force in the world, the USA, continues to play the victim card time after time. The excuse for their indiscriminate killing spree in Gaza is that they are the victims of Arab aggression and the only peaceful democracy in the Middle East. Any act of aggression against them are met with brutal force, and yet, even when their actions are questioned they portray themselves as the victims of antisemitism.

This in no way suggests that Hezbollah or Hamas are innocent. Both are known for their aggressive approach to their perceived oppression. However, we often fall into the binary thinking that if one party is the aggressor, the other is automatically the victim. If Hamas is deemed the aggressor, then Israel is automatically seen as the victim. We need to understand that both parties can assume the role of aggressor at the same time. The narrative that places parties opposite one another instead of next to one another excused Israel from the atrocities that followed.

The victims of the regional conflict in the Middle East are women and children.

Since October 7, 2023, more than 50,000 children have reportedly been killed or injured in Gaza. According to UNICEF, this equates to one child affected every 20 minutes. The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza has confirmed that 15,613 children have been killed, making up 31% of the total casualties. Many more remain missing or presumed dead under the rubble.

Those are the victims. Not Israel.

If the general definition of victimhood is to be accepted and Israel is classified as the victim in the conflict and not Iran, then double truths are at play

8) HUMAN SHIELDS

Israel often deploys its use of missile defence systems, like the Iron Dome, near or within residential areas. This automatically becomes a legitimate target for missiles fired from Iran and places the civilians in immediate an imminent danger. From Israel’s perspective, placing these systems near population centres is necessary because that’s where the threat is aimed. This is generally accepted by many Western governments and media outlets as a legitimate form of civilian protection.

In contrast, when Hamas operates from within civilian areas, Israel and its allies often accuse them of using “human shields” to fight the war. This term implies an intentional strategy to deter attacks by embedding military assets among civilians, which is considered a violation of international law.

Critics highlight a double standard in how the conflict is framed. While Hamas may operate in civilian areas, the massive destruction in Gaza—tens of thousands of deaths and widespread devastation—raises serious concerns about proportionality and accountability. Some analysts suggest that the “human shields” narrative is not just a justification but a strategic tool, allowing Israel to frame its own use of civilians as deterrents while deflecting scrutiny. This approach, they argue, shifts attention away from the actual civilian toll, making it harder to assess the full impact of military actions on both sides.

So, while it is TRUE that both sides operate in densely populated areas, the TRUTH of their actions are often applied unevenly. That’s where the charge of double standards gains traction—especially when the consequences for civilians are so starkly different.

9) DESTABILISING THE MIDDLE EAST

When Russia considers supplying Bastion missiles to Iran, it’s immediately framed by Mr. Donald Trump as an act of destabilizing the Middle East. And that is true, it will.

The truth however, is that the U.S. continues to entrench itself in Middle Eastern dynamics. Since the war began on October 7, 2023, the United States has supplied Israel with over 50,000 tons of military equipment via more than 500 U.S. airlifts, including armored vehicles, munitions, personal protection gear, and medical supplies. The U.S. has also sent 107 shipments by sea, reinforcing Israel’s operational capacity during the ongoing conflict. The U.S. accounts for 69% of Israel’s major arms imports between 2019 and 2023.

This is all branded as ‘stabilising’ the Middle East. If we’re honest, the region’s volatility has long been compounded by U.S. interventions, not Russian posturing. The real question isn’t who’s destabilizing the Middle East… it’s who’s allowed to, and under what moral pretense.

10) CIVILIAN CASUALTIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY:

Israeli strikes that result in civilian casualties—such as the bombing of hospitals and residential areas in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon—are frequently met with muted international response or justified under the banner of targeting “terror infrastructure.” On June 16, Israel shelled a crowd of starving civilians waiting for bread in Gaza, killing more in a single day than Iran had in its entire retaliation. The world remained largely silent. These atrocities were eclipsed by the global focus on Israeli suffering. And while destruction in Israel is devastating, it remains unmatched by the decimation in Gaza, where nearly 80% of buildings have been reduced to rubble.

By contrast, similar actions by Iran or its allies are quickly labeled terrorism or war crimes. Attacks on Israel spark global mourning, especially among Western Christians, who see them as assaults on the Holy Land. But when it comes to grieving Palestinian lives, the silence is deafening. This unequal measure—valuing certain lives over others and justifying the killing of innocents—reflects a double truth that, as Scripture reminds us, the Lord detests. His justice demands that truth be applied without partiality.

FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

The Bible strongly condemns double truths that lead to double standards, emphasizing fairness, integrity, and justice. Sharing what is true might not equate to sharing truth. The dangers are subtle

Here are a few key verses that address this issue:

Proverbs 20:23 – “The Lord detests double standards; he is not pleased by dishonest scales."

Deuteronomy 16:19 – “Do not pervert justice or show favoritism. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent.”

James 2:1 – “Believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism.”

Matthew 7:2 – “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

These verses highlight the importance of consistency in judgment, fairness in treatment, and integrity in actions.

Was the attack on Iran a righteous act, as Mr. Pence proclaimed? Only if TRUTH prevails – not double truths. If Mr. Pence holds on to this truth, then he should also condemn Israel for the destruction of Gaza and the killing of thousands of innocent civilians. Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah should be held accountable for acts of terror. But so should Israel. The Bible calls believers to reject hypocrisy – double truths – and uphold justice, ensuring that the same truths apply to all.

A final word from Fyodor Lukyanov, prominent Russian expert in the field of international relations and foreign policy. (https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/fyodor-lukyanov/)

“Peace built on force is no peace at all.

We are witnessing the result. The Iran-Israel war is not a bolt from the blue. It is the direct consequence of two decades of dismantled norms, unchecked ambitions, and a deep misunderstanding of the region’s political fabric. And as always in the Middle East, when utopias fail, it is the people who pay the price.”