How did the media in the Middle East cover Israel's strikes on Iran?

Euronews

17 hours ago

Israel's massive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and top military commanders overnight on Friday ignited not only regional tensions but also placed the regional media on high alert.
Israel's main outlets were divided in their coverage of the event between the technical and military aspects and political and strategic analysis, amid a realisation that what happened is not just a military operation, but a turning point that may redraw the map of clashes in the region.
Meanwhile, the media outlets across the Arab world took into account their domestic political context and international relations, particularly with the US, leading to some mixed positions on the event.
Here is an overview of how the region's main news outlets covered the Israel-Iran conflict, as it continued to develop on Friday.
Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya and Al Hadath relied on headlines such as "Israeli attack on Iranian facilities" or "Israel bombs Iran".
The coverage was swift and intense, with events reported according to Western and US sources, particularly emphasising the political positions as stated by Saudi Arabian officials.
Sky News Arabia's coverage was characterised by a balanced tone, using headlines such as: "Israel strikes Iran". The channel focused on documenting the facts and reporting international reactions, while also cautiously reporting official Iranian statements.
It also included in-depth analyses from political and security analysts, reviewing possible scenarios of escalation in the region, while being careful not to overestimate the impact of the strike or pre-emptive reactions.
The online newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat took an independent approach to the event, using headlines such as: "Israel attacks Iran. Tehran vows to retaliate".
The Saudi newspaper relied on reports from multiple sources, including official Iranian statements and Western analyses, focusing on the political and military dimensions of the strike, its impact on the nuclear negotiations and the balance of power in the region.
In contrast, the Qatari channel Al Jazeera led its coverage with phrases such as "Israel attacks Iran".
The channel also provided extensive analytical coverage, hosting military and strategic experts to discuss the repercussions of the escalation on the Iranian nuclear file and the situation in Gaza, where the Israel-Hamas war has been raging for around 20 months.
The Lebanese press seemed divided in its coverage, reflecting the internal divide. An-Nahar newspaper headlined: "Unprecedented Israeli attack on Iran, killing the commander of the Revolutionary Guard and nuclear energy scientists."
At the same time, news close to Hezbollah covered the news of Israel's attack on Iran, focusing on the statements of Iranian officials.
Egyptian websites merely reported the news from international agencies under straightforward news headlines.
Most of them did not analyse or adopt clear positions, which seems to be in line with the editorial policy that tends to avoid taking sides in complex regional conflicts.
Haaretz, known for its critical attitude towards the security and political establishment, chose a cautious analytical angle.
In its editorial, it steered clear of the "tactical victory" narrative and raised questions about the feasibility of the strike and its future dimensions.
The newspaper's analysts questioned whether this operation is a prelude to a broader war that Israel may not be able to contain, or whether it is merely a tactical move to deter Iran from advancing its nuclear programme.
The newspaper also linked the strike to internal tensions in Israel, arguing that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "fighting his biggest battle abroad while his legitimacy is eroding at home."
Yedioth Ahronoth, the most widely circulated newspaper, adopted a tone that tended to focus on the operational aspects.
It published extensive details about the nature of the strikes, the types of weapons used, and the army's estimates of the losses inflicted on Iran's military infrastructure.
But it also did not fail to mention the challenges ahead. Its coverage included analyses of the possibility of opening fronts in the north with Hezbollah, or in the Red Sea by the Houthis, noting "the biggest security alert since the 1973 war".
In its coverage, the English-language Jerusalem Post focused on the "precision of intelligence coordination", describing the operation as "more complex than the assassination of (Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen) Fakhrizadeh", stressing that the attack was carried out after months of monitoring and gradual implementation.
But it also warned that "Israel may have opened a door that cannot be easily closed," and recalled how fragile the home front is, especially in light of the declining readiness of the reserve forces and the crisis associated with compulsory military service for ultraorthodox Jews.
The Times of Israel took a more comprehensive approach to news coverage. It quoted statements from Israeli and US sources, most notably the assertion that "the US was aware of the strike, but did not actually participate".
It also suggested that the operation "may have a domestic electoral impact", in light of Netanyahu's attempts to regain political momentum in the face of escalating protests related to the Gaza hostage issue and accusations from the opposition that the country is embroiled in open confrontations for political purposes.
Most Israeli media outlets agreed to characterise the event as a "pivotal moment", but they differed in reading the price that the Hebrew state might pay.
While some newspapers cheered the security achievement, others did not hide their concern about the repercussions of the strike, whether on the Iranian front or at home.
In Iran, no traditional newspapers are published on Friday. Saturday is also a public holiday, marking a major Shiite religious celebration, with not many outlets printing newspapers.
The digital outlets, all controlled by the Tehran regime, have thus far disseminated only propaganda.