In the recent Iran–Israel ceasefire situation, both sides publicly declared agreement on a truce. Hours later, Israel claimed Iran had launched missiles, violating the deal. Iran, in turn, denied any such launch ever took place.
What strikes me is how dramatically their statements diverge — and yet neither has offered any solid proof. No satellite imagery, no intercepted communications, no verified video footage. This makes me wonder: when the technical means to confirm or disprove such claims exist (e.g. radar logs, satellite evidence), why would either side risk an outright lie that could be exposed?
Who’s lying — and more importantly, why? Is the goal simply to shape narrative momentum before facts can catch up? Are these statements made for internal audiences rather than international credibility?
I’m curious how others interpret such deliberate ambiguity. Can both sides be bluffing, or are we missing crucial pieces from third-party observers?
They say the wrong things on purpose. They know everyone else knows they’re lying. They do it to demonstrate power. It’s bullying conducted on a large, systematic scale. By the time a person proves their lies are wrong, they’ve moved onto the next lie.
Why do this? Why the need to demonstrate this kind of power? They’re making excuses for stealing and murdering. They’re going to kill your family, then say they deserved it for whatever reason. It tells the out-groups they are powerless, they don’t even have control over the truth. It tells the rest of their in-group they can act with impunity and feel no guilt or remorse for the atrocities they commit.
It’s White Man’s Burden, Manifest Destiny, thousand-year Reich, Lebensraum, Crusades, etc. etc. repackaged for the needs of Isreal and zionists.