Double Standards in Global Media: How Iran’s F-35 Claims Were Dismissed While Pakistan’s Rafale Allegations Made Headlines
In the world of international news, not all stories are treated equally — and recent events have made this clearer than ever. The striking difference in how global media covered Iran’s recent claims of shooting down Israeli F-35 stealth fighters, compared to Pakistan’s allegations of downing Indian Rafale jets, highlights a deeper issue of selective journalism, media bias, and geopolitical influence.
Iran’s F-35 Shoot-Down Claim
In June 2025, Iranian state media made headlines within the region by claiming that its air defence systems had shot down three Israeli F-35I Adir stealth fighters during escalating tensions between the two countries. Iran stated that its domestically developed Bavar-373 air defence system successfully engaged the advanced jets between June 13-15, 2025. The reports further claimed that two Israeli pilots, including one female officer, were captured.
If true, this would mark the first-ever combat loss of a fifth-generation stealth fighter anywhere in the world, a major event in military aviation history. However, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) immediately dismissed these claims as “fabricated,” insisting that all their aircraft and personnel returned safely.
Despite the magnitude such an event would hold in global military history, major Western media outlets offered only restrained coverage. The claims were either ignored, downplayed, or quickly labelled as unverified, with little investigation or follow-up reporting. Even as regional outlets in the Middle East discussed the incident in detail, Western platforms maintained a cautious distance.
Pakistan’s Rafale Allegations
In sharp contrast, when Pakistan claimed to have shot down six Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft, including three Rafale fighters, during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, international media was quick to amplify the story. Despite the fact that Pakistan failed to provide credible evidence, and Dassault Aviation’s CEO directly called the claims false, these allegations received widespread global attention.
Just like in the Iran case, Pakistan’s claims included stories of captured pilots and supposed wreckage footage, much of which was later exposed as doctored or misrepresented. Yet, the international media gave these claims a higher profile, extensive reporting, and on-screen discussions, even after their credibility was seriously questioned.
The Double Standard in Reporting
This disparity in coverage reveals a troubling pattern. It seems that similar military claims by different nations are treated differently based on geopolitical alignments and diplomatic interests. While healthy scepticism is essential in journalism, applying it inconsistently creates a biased and distorted information environment.
When it comes to Iran — a country often at odds with the West — military claims are quickly dismissed. Meanwhile, Pakistan, despite its own track record of unverified allegations, often finds its military narratives getting more attention, particularly when targeting India, a nation whose strategic partnerships with the West have historically shaped regional narratives.
Historical Patterns and Context
This isn’t the first time Pakistan has made questionable military claims. During the 2019 Balakot air strikes, Pakistan alleged it had shot down multiple Indian aircraft — claims that were also later debunked or disproven. Yet, the international media gave them considerable airtime. This recurring pattern suggests that global media reactions are influenced by the political context of the parties involved, rather than a neutral assessment of the facts.
Regional vs. Western Media Response
Middle Eastern media platforms reported the Iran-Israel incident extensively, reflecting regional power dynamics and audience interests. Meanwhile, major Western networks, though covering the broader conflict, refrained from giving the F-35 shoot-down claim significant coverage. When it was reported, it came with strong disclaimers about its authenticity, often buried within larger conflict updates.
In the case of Pakistan, however, the same restraint was noticeably absent. The allegations were widely reported and debated before being fact-checked, which further underscores inconsistencies in how similar claims are handled.
The Deeper Problem: Global Information Architecture
This selective journalism points to a deeper issue: the global information landscape is dominated by a handful of powerful Western media organizations. These outlets hold disproportionate control over what becomes global news, how stories are framed, and whose narratives get amplified or sidelined.
The consequences are serious. When public access to reliable, balanced information is compromised, it shapes global perceptions, national reputations, and geopolitical narratives. Selective reporting and double standards foster misinformation, reinforce existing biases, and weaken trust in international journalism.
Conclusion
The glaring difference in media treatment between Iran’s F-35 shoot-down claims and Pakistan’s Rafale allegations highlights a broader problem of selective journalism rooted in geopolitical bias. While scepticism is vital in conflict reporting, it must be applied fairly and consistently. Failure to do so not only damages the credibility of global media but also distorts public understanding of international affairs.
As conflicts and rivalries continue to evolve in volatile regions, it’s crucial for global media to uphold objectivity, challenge political narratives equally, and maintain transparent verification standards — irrespective of where a story originates.
