Many politicians and analysts today tend to dismiss — sometimes even mock — the overuse of the term “narrative” in political debates. They may be right in criticizing its excessive repetition, often without a deep understanding of its meaning and implications. However, they are mistaken in downplaying its importance. In today’s political landscape, narrative may in fact be the key factor obstructing a deal in the ongoing Islamabad negotiations, as each side seeks to construct and promote its own version of the political outcome of the war.

 

From a rational and realist perspective, the interests of both parties — the United States and Iran — clearly lie in avoiding a return to war and in reaching a mutually beneficial political agreement. The progress already made on a significant number of contentious issues strengthens the likelihood of such a deal. This agreement could not only end the war but potentially pave the way for the development of shared interests between the two sides. Conversely, a continuation of the war would be disastrous for Iran, especially as any future phase would likely be more destructive to its infrastructure and more damaging overall. As for the United States, the war risks becoming increasingly futile, with mounting evidence suggesting that the regime will not collapse through military means, and that the assumptions underpinning President Donald Trump’s decision to go to war have failed. The repercussions for the global economy — including the American economy — would be severe.

 

The central dilemma of the current war lies in the ambiguity surrounding the definition of military victory. Each side claims success, yet such claims remain inherently relative. This relativity stems from the close linkage between military outcomes and political objectives, making the concept of victory itself contested and debatable. Here, political narrative assumes a decisive role in shaping perception — or discourse — as each party seeks to redefine what has occurred: is it victory, defeat, or some hybrid outcome? This definition carries significant internal and external consequences for all involved parties, including Israel, for whom narrative is no less critical.

 

What further amplifies the importance of narrative as a key variable in framing the conflict is the growing entanglement between domestic and external dimensions. While this is not a new phenomenon — as foreign policy is generally understood to be an extension of domestic politics — the current level of polarization within the states involved has heightened the sensitivity to how the war’s outcome is perceived internally. In the present moment, the domestic factor appears not only as a dependent variable influenced by the war’s outcome, but also as an independent variable shaping decisions about the war itself.

 

On the Iranian domestic front, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has emerged as the most influential actor, holding the reins of power and deeply invested in promoting a narrative of resilience and victory. This is a matter of existential importance for the institution, particularly within a political system that has experienced significant internal unrest, mass protests, and ongoing debates over its legitimacy. A narrative of endurance and success would strengthen its domestic standing and help redefine its regional role. A similar dynamic is evident in the case of President Trump, whose rhetoric is closely tied to major domestic political variables — including a pro-war constituency, particularly among pro-Israel supporters, as well as a critical base composed of Democrats and opponents of previous administrations, especially former President Barack Obama, who signed the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. The absence of a strong deal in Trump’s favor would significantly weaken his broader narrative and could undermine his position ahead of the crucial midterm elections in November.

 

Narrative — or discourse — is not a secondary or marginal issue. It is a means of constructing reality through a specific linguistic and conceptual framework. This makes the production of narrative and discourse a central concern in contemporary politics, with growing awareness of its influence on state behavior and decision-making. The current war offers a compelling example of the profound impact that narrative can have — particularly on decisions of war and the fate of ongoing negotiations.