By Emilia Reed on April 20, 2026 from Havana
Pedro Santander
At the Fifth International Colloquium “Patria,” held last week in Havana, Chilean academic Pedro Santander explained why communication in contemporary wars is no longer a secondary front, but a decisive battleground. Based on this premise, he pointed to a specific case: Iran’s communication strategies amidst its confrontation with the United States.
The relevant aspect of this example is not so much the political stance of one actor or the other, but rather the strategic lessons that can be gleaned from their communication style. In an ecosystem dominated by digital platforms, algorithms, and fragmented information consumption, those who do not intervene systematically lose visibility, influence, and the ability to interpret events. Iran has clearly grasped this: communicating is not about reacting occasionally, but about maintaining a constant, organized, and goal-oriented presence.
This logic translates into a specific form of asymmetric warfare. Just as in the military arena actors with fewer resources compensate for inequality through mobility, decentralization, and precision, something similar occurs in the communications sphere. The strategy involves producing a lot of content with relatively few resources, prioritizing speed. Short videos, direct pieces, clear messages: with little, do a lot.
One of the most striking elements is the use of Lego-style animations, combined with video game aesthetics and hip-hop music. This is no small feat: it allows for the simplification of complex conflicts and their translation into culturally recognizable codes on social media. This format broadens audiences and facilitates virality.
Added to this is a key factor: speed. Thanks to the use of artificial intelligence, these pieces can be produced in a matter of hours. This introduces a decisive advantage. In the contemporary communications war, victory doesn’t go to the one with the most information, but to the one who manages to intervene first, establish a framework, and repeat it until it becomes the standard.
Hence the importance of “constant bombardment.” It’s not about large, isolated campaigns, but rather a sustained cadence of messages that keep the topic circulating. In an environment where attention is fleeting, organized repetition becomes a positioning tool.
This dynamic is based on a decentralized architecture: spokespeople with the capacity to intervene, active institutional accounts—including embassies—and proprietary platforms that produce content. This is complemented by alliances with major media outlets that amplify the message and allow it to reach massive audiences.
Another distinctive feature is the precision of the discourse. Instead of abstract appeals, the strategy prioritizes specific targets. The conflict is personalized, the narrative is simplified, and it becomes easier to understand. On social media, where attention is decided in seconds, this focus is more effective than general approaches.
Finally, there is a key element: the need to make the truth communicable. It is not enough to be right. If the message does not capture attention, it does not circulate. Aesthetics—image, rhythm, sound—becomes a central part of political effectiveness.
Herein lies the idea that best summarizes this strategy: speedboats versus aircraft carriers. Against large, slow, and cumbersome media apparatuses, the strategy relies on agile, decentralized, and rapid structures, capable of moving quickly, striking with precision, and disappearing before being neutralized. In the communications war of the 21st century, this agility can, at least in part, balance the disparity of forces.
Source: Granma, translation Walter Lippmann