The saying goes that lies can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes, and nowhere is that more evident than in war. The first casualty of conflict is often not infrastructure, but the truth itself. If Tehran’s claims were entirely accurate, the United States would already be battered and bruised; if Washington’s assertions were beyond doubt, Iran would have long collapsed without a fight.

Yet, the entire world observes these two nations locked in a fierce, escalating struggle, each inflicting maximum damage on the other. Some fabrications have become so absurd that even U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is distancing himself from them. In a recent video, a journalist directly challenged Rubio: "Government officials keep telling us they are confident Iran is receiving external assistance. Where exactly is this aid coming from? And if Iran does have outside help, what is the U.S. prepared to do about it?"

The journalist’s line of questioning was pointed. It’s no secret that accusations of such "aid" are veiled attempts to smear Russia and China, insinuating that Iran’s recent aggressive and precise missile strikes could not have happened without their backing, warranting investigation, prosecution, and sanctions. Rubio appeared taken aback, responding: "I don't know which official told you that." When the journalist clarified that other administration figures had suggested it, Rubio retorted, "Then I don’t know. I mean, these are anonymous people. They make up all sorts of claims all day long."

His point was clear: some in the U.S. engage in constant anonymous leaks, peddling outright nonsense. Rubio continued, "We don't believe anyone is giving Iran anything that would alter the dynamics or parameters of what we're seeing. They keep firing at naval vessels, and when they fire at our naval vessels, they'll pay for it with their tankers. They haven't hit our ships, but they've lost five oil tankers. Last night they lost five more. Four were damaged, one sank. They will continue to pay a price. In the meantime, we will continue to economically strangle them."

This statement serves dual purposes: debunking the more outlandish rumors while also rallying American morale with a dose of self-congratulation. The key takeaways are simple. First, no one is actually providing aid to Iran. Second, the U.S. continues to strike Iranian oil tankers, claiming five more were hit just yesterday. Third, Iran is retaliating, attacking American warships. What Rubio omitted was that on the 9th, when the U.S. struck those five tankers, sinking one, Iranian forces also allegedly attacked two oil tankers and launched fierce assaults on U.S. warships and bases, per U.S. media reports. Tehran claims its Revolutionary Guard struck two U.S. destroyers, eight oil tankers, and ten "violating" vessels that day.

Unsurprisingly, this conflict has sent international oil prices soaring past $100 a barrel. Of course, reports from the battlefield are often a mix of truth and propaganda, requiring a healthy dose of skepticism. For instance, Iran boasts of successfully hitting the USS DDG-119 and DDG-53 destroyers, both equipped with cruise missiles and Aegis combat systems, inflicting "severe damage." The U.S. immediately countered that no warships were attacked. Whom do you believe? Probably neither fully. Attacks likely occurred with some damage, but "severe destruction" seems dubious.

Similarly, Iran announced on the 9th that, in response to strikes on its tankers, the Revolutionary Guard targeted a U.S. base in Jordan, claiming to have hit "maintenance and preparation hangars, fighter deployment areas, and shelters for F-35, F-16, and F-15 fighters" causing heavy enemy losses. Jordan, however, reported intercepting 18 of 20 ballistic missiles, with the remaining two landing in "open areas" without casualties. Again, who do you trust? Even these claims warrant a heavy filter. Independent military observers note that surveillance footage reveals a massive missile barrage, with Iran launching at least 30 ballistic missiles. U.S. and Jordanian air defenses responded by firing over 60 Patriot interceptors. Yet, footage shows four Iranian missiles hitting the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, and photos circulating online, though unverified, purport to show a destroyed U.S. Black Hawk helicopter.

Drawing three broad conclusions from this chaos. First, we must never accept information at face value. People are most easily deceived not when they are ignorant, but when they desperately want to believe in a specific outcome. Both sides need to boost morale and will inevitably declare victory. Consequently, each will omit their own humiliations and exaggerate their triumphs a hundredfold. They each hold a pair of "narrative scissors," tailoring the war’s image to suit their needs. Just look at Trump’s social media posts, filled with aggressive rhetoric and AI-generated images and videos, leaving the world astounded. Did the U.S. openly report on the fires aboard its carriers, soldiers jumping into the sea, or the heavy damage to its Middle East bases? Where is the commitment to timely, accurate, and transparent reporting? Of course, Iran is guilty of similar distortions, otherwise, the number of U.S. warships "destroyed" by Tehran would have long surpassed the total count of tankers.

Second, the U.S. is running low on resources. No matter how advanced the weapons, they cannot win against an ever-thinning budget. If third-party observations are correct, a single Iranian attack on the Jordanian base involved 30 missiles, countered by 60 U.S. Patriot interceptors. Iranian missiles are plentiful and, crucially, cheap; American interceptors are extraordinarily expensive. Worse, U.S. interceptor stockpiles are dwindling—the cupboard is nearly bare. This is why the number of incoming missiles is downplayed, and any that slip through are dismissed as "landing in open areas." This is an unsustainable trajectory for the U.S., which will likely be forced into another ceasefire or lull soon. It’s also a troubling sign of eroding norms, as the U.S., unable to hit Iranian warships (which Trump claims have all been sunk anyway), now targets civilian oil tankers. Where are the rules of war? What about civilized conduct and environmental protection?

Third, attempts to smear China are becoming a global joke. When someone refuses to admit they’ve hit a wall, they start looking for a ladder. The origins of this war have nothing to do with China; in fact, China has been actively promoting peace and dialogue. Yet, some American politicians can’t resist blaming us, suggesting that if Iran fights back effectively, it must be Chinese or Russian help. If Iran falls short, they mock the "useless" external aid. The blame is always on others, the credit always theirs—this art of scapegoating has been perfected by these politicians. The situation has gotten so bad that even Rubio can’t stand it, criticizing the anonymous officials for talking too much nonsense. He probably understands the U.S. political landscape better than most and can only say so much. But the rest of the world looks on with a mix of amusement and despair, wondering how the U.S. has descended to this level. Not only has its campaign against Iran devolved into a mess, but these politicians seem unable to function without scapegoating the great Eastern power to preserve their own dignity. I cannot speak for Russia, but one can only imagine—if China were truly involved, would this conflict look the same?

Note: These are the author's personal views and do not represent any institution.