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?
This is where some of the problem is. Most people aren’t even going to try to think about it, they’re just going to believe what they already believe regardless of what happens. Conservatives are especially like this, but really just about anyone who isn’t actively tearing down their own indoctrination is just nodding and smiling at everything around them like they’ve been trained to do their entire lives.