Projecting resistance after loss: strategic signalling in Iran’s wartime public murals

In the study of international relations, a central question is how a nation convinces the world—and its own people—that it will not back down, even when it has suffered terrible losses. This is not just about counting tanks or missiles; it is about the stories a country tells itself and its neighbors to prove it still has the will to fight. Researchers call this "strategic signaling," a process where a government uses visible actions to project strength, resolve, and the ability to recover. In the modern world, these signals are often sent through news broadcasts or diplomatic statements, but in some places, they are painted directly onto the walls of cities. Public murals, those large-scale images found on buildings and in squares, act as a permanent, daily reminder of a nation's identity and its readiness to endure. When a country faces a severe crisis, these images do more than decorate; they attempt to shape reality by convincing observers that the state remains whole, capable, and unbroken.

This is the puzzle that a team of researchers set out to solve regarding Iran during a period of intense conflict in 2025 and 2026. Following a series of devastating military strikes by the United States and Israel that destroyed nuclear facilities, killed senior leaders including Ali Khamenei, and damaged infrastructure, the Iranian government continued to resist. To an outside observer, the country appeared to be in a state of collapse, yet it kept launching missiles and maintaining its political structure. The researchers wanted to understand how the Iranian state used its public art to make this resistance look plausible. They collected and analyzed 73 specific murals that appeared in Iranian public spaces between June 2025 and July 2026. By examining the images, the text written on them, and where they were placed, the team decoded the specific messages the government was sending to its citizens and the world. They found that these paintings were not random expressions of anger but a carefully constructed system designed to signal that the nation could survive the loss of its leaders and its weapons.

The researchers discovered that the murals worked by organizing the chaos of war into three distinct, reassuring stories. The first story focused on the weapons themselves, specifically the missiles. Instead of showing the missiles as tools of aggression, the art depicted them as a form of collective defense owned by the entire people. One prominent image showed a mythical archer, a figure from ancient Persian legend, shooting an arrow that transformed into a modern missile. This visual choice linked the ancient duty of protecting the homeland with the modern capability of the military. Another mural showed a diverse crowd of men, women, and children raising their fists, with missiles rising behind them like a shield. The message was clear: the power to strike back belonged to the nation as a whole, not just the government. This signaled that even if the military leadership was damaged, the will of the people remained intact, making it difficult for an enemy to force a surrender.

The second story addressed the most shocking event of the conflict: the death of the country's supreme leader. In many political systems, the loss of a top leader creates a power vacuum that can lead to chaos. The murals, however, told a different tale. They showed the transfer of power as a smooth, almost sacred handover from the old leader to a new one, specifically identified in the analysis as Mojtaba Khamenei. The art did not show a struggle for power or a moment of confusion. Instead, it presented the new leader as the natural and immediate heir, authorized by religious and revolutionary history. Furthermore, the murals placed this political transition within the context of familiar religious holidays and mourning rituals. By showing the new leader alongside scenes of family celebrations and traditional festivals, the images suggested that the rhythm of daily life and the structure of the state had not been broken. The death of the leader was framed not as an end, but as a journey that strengthened the resolve of those left behind.

The third story was about the ability of the state to keep functioning. After a war that destroyed hospitals, cut off supplies, and damaged the economy, a government might lose the trust of its people if it cannot provide basic services. The murals countered this fear by showing the state as a caring and capable manager. One image depicted satellites shining beams of light down on cities, farms, and water sources, suggesting that the government could still see, measure, and manage the entire country from above. Another image showed nurses, described as "angels," caring for infants and the sick. These pictures were designed to show that despite the bombing and sanctions, the machinery of government was still working. The state was portrayed as a protector that could still feed its people, heal its sick, and organize its resources. This visual evidence of competence was meant to convince the population that the government could still deliver on its promises, preventing the social collapse that often follows a major defeat.

The researchers also noted that the location of these murals was just as important as the images themselves. The paintings were not scattered randomly; they were concentrated in specific, high-traffic areas like Vali Asr Square in Tehran, a major intersection known for displaying the most important national messages. Other murals appeared in provincial cities like Shiraz and Zanjan, often in squares dedicated to religious history. This distribution showed that the government still had the organizational power to produce, transport, and install these large-scale artworks even while under attack. The fact that the murals were being put up and updated so quickly signaled that the communication apparatus of the state was still fully operational. It was a visual proof that the government had not been paralyzed by the strikes.

Ultimately, the study suggests that these murals served as a form of psychological armor. By combining images of national unity, orderly leadership succession, and continued social care, the Iranian government created a narrative that made continued resistance seem not only possible but inevitable. The art did not deny that losses had occurred; instead, it reframed those losses as part of a larger, enduring struggle. The missiles were still there, the leadership had been passed on, and the people were still being cared for. For the researchers, this analysis reveals how a state can use visual culture to maintain its position in a crisis. The murals provided a plausible story of survival that helped the government withstand external pressure and keep its own population committed to the fight. The study concludes that while the physical damage of war is real, the ability to control the story of that damage is a powerful tool for survival, allowing a nation to project strength even when it is vulnerable.