When mediators step into a conflict, they need facts to build a foundation for negotiation. However, entities like CENTCOM and the IRGC rarely provide the same story. One side might report a precision strike that neutralized a specific target, while the other describes the same event as a failed provocation or a civilian tragedy. This discrepancy creates a fog of war that makes it impossible to determine what actually happened on the ground.
This information gap creates a practical crisis for diplomacy. If diplomats cannot agree on whether a ceasefire was broken, they cannot enforce one. If they cannot verify troop movements or missile counts, they cannot build trust. Instead of negotiating terms based on shared realities, mediators spend their energy litigating basic facts. Every attempt to establish a 'baseline' becomes a battleground for propaganda.
Reliance on these partisan accounts forces international actors to pick sides or rely on flawed third-party intelligence. This choice often undermines the perceived neutrality of the mediator. When the very facts used to measure progress are disputed, de-escalation efforts often stall before they even begin.
