Call of Duty co-founder claims Activision pushed to make a game about Iran invading Israel

[Alfonso Maruccia]

In brief: After the original founders of Infinity Ward left to form Respawn Entertainment, Activision reportedly asked Call of Duty developers to make a game about Iran invading Israel. According to developer Chance Glasco, the publisher placed "awkward" pressure on the team to pursue the concept. In the end, most of the developers were disgusted by the idea, and the virtual Iran-Israel war project was never made.

Glasco, a co-founding developer of both Infinity Ward and the Call of Duty franchise, now works as a consultant in the video game industry. He shared his recollection of Activision's pressure on social media, joining an ongoing discussion about the unusually blunt way the Trump administration is embedding video game footage in pro-war clips.

This doesn't surprise me. I remember after Activision took over post-Respawn formation there was a very awkward pressure from Activision for us to make the next CoD about Iran attacking Israel. Luckily the vast majority of our devs were disgusted by the idea and it got shot down. https://t.co/taTIsQUklI

– Chance Glasco (@ChanceGlasco) March 4, 2026

Glasco later elaborated on his statements, revealing that the publisher's team attempted to influence the studio during pre-production meetings. Developers working on Call of Duty were reportedly appalled because the requests from Activision Blizzard appeared to resemble political messaging rather than standard game development guidance.

After Activision took over Infinity Ward post-Respawn formation, there was pressure from Activision in our preproduction meetings for the next IW CoD to be about Iran attacking Israel. A lot of us devs were appalled because it felt like political propaganda being pushed by…

– Chance Glasco (@ChanceGlasco) March 4, 2026

When asked about other controversial narrative choices involving countries and conflicts depicted in the Call of Duty series, Glasco said that governments around the world increasingly use entertainment media to influence public opinion on major issues such as war.

He added that, compared to other hypothetical scenarios like the controversial "No Russian" mission in Modern Warfare 2, a potential Iran – Israel conflict has reportedly been a real policy focus across multiple US administrations.

My point is that the government would happily use entertainment, including video games, as a way to sway public opinion on major issues. There have been decades of pressure for a war with Iran across multiple administrations. The scenarios you mentioned, not so much.

– Chance Glasco (@ChanceGlasco) March 5, 2026

Early Call of Duty titles were allegedly designed to convey that war is not entertainment but a harsh and destructive reality, Glasco said. In the controversial "No Russian" mission, players were given the option to skip the level entirely or avoid harming civilians during gameplay. Glasco added that he later lost his Russian passport after the scenario leaked and is still uncertain whether he remains barred from traveling to the country.

The Trump administration has repeatedly demonstrated how video games can function as communication channels for promoting its policy messaging. Before using Call of Duty footage to highlight its claims of a "winning streak" in operations involving Iran, the White House used an appearance by the Halo character Master Chief to support recruitment efforts for Immigration and Customs Enforcement . Even the Pokémon franchise was referenced in messaging related to immigration enforcement activities.

Permalink to story:

Call of Duty co-founder claims Activision pushed to make a game about Iran invading Israel

 

[toooooot]

All I want is a massive USA China game.

 

[JMGuy]

LOL. FFS. Pick a lane.

You can’t spend years selling cinematic firefights, killstreaks, and multiplayer scoreboards and then clutch your pearls over a hypothetical Iran–Israel storyline.

This is some of the most ridiculous hair-splitting I’ve ever heard. GTFO.

 

[toooooot]

"In the end, most of the developers were disgusted by the idea, and the virtual Iran-Israel war project was never made"
Tell me this. You are a moderate person who either feels neutral to Israel (like I do) or simply do not care what this small nation on the other side of the planet does. Why is it disgusting? I have no other theories besides woke people strongly disliking Israel.
P.S. I am sure that a 6-day war call of duty would be epic. It is truly one of those amazing wars that inspire
people to become soldiers.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

The Israeli government has been trying to convince the US to go to war with Iran since the Bush administration (Iran has been "months away from a nuke" since then) through all sorts of methods, PR, propaganda, and apparently blackmail of politicians.

So "pressure" to paint Iran as an aggressive country that attacks poor Israel for no reason into the cultural background is unsurprising to anyone unbiased.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

"In the end, most of the developers were disgusted by the idea, and the virtual Iran-Israel war project was never made"
Tell me this. You are a moderate person who either feels neutral to Israel (like I do) or simply do not care what this small nation on the other side of the planet does. Why is it disgusting? I have no other theories besides woke people strongly disliking Israel.
P.S. I am sure that a 6-day war call of duty would be epic. It is truly one of those amazing wars that inspire
people to become soldiers.

Making war into a game for fun is one thing (largely sidestepping politics).

Making actual war propaganda that could nudge the US closer to a real war where real people die is completely different.

 

[Hexic]

Making war into a game for fun is one thing (largely sidestepping politics).

Making actual war propaganda that could nudge the US closer to a real war where real people die is completely different.

You see, but that’s just your opinion, man.

“War propaganda” is completely subjective, and accusing a company such as Activision who has made global war games for decades at this point is about as based as it gets.

So, slaughtering Russian civilians in an official game level is OK, but a potential Iran-Israel conflict isn’t even worth breaching?

Nah, it’s all politics. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. That’s why we call this “fantasy”, and not real life.

Suggesting a video game could lead to global conflict is amusing to say the least.

 

[agentnate009]

LOL. FFS. Pick a lane.

You can’t spend years selling cinematic firefights, killstreaks, and multiplayer scoreboards and then clutch your pearls over a hypothetical Iran–Israel storyline.

This is some of the most ridiculous hair-splitting I’ve ever heard. GTFO.

Creative artists general try to avoid scenarios the too closely resemble current events, but maybe you didn't pick up on stuff like that. I'm fine with fictional events in Mexico, or Vietnam since that war is long past. I would prefer that games avoid copying current events or potential events too close to current events. Games are fantasy and fiction and should stay in that realm. We don't need a game where we can cosplay being ICE agents and shooting US citizens in American streets and the reasons why should be obvious.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It would have been far more interesting then whatever fever dream they have been trying to sell the last couple years.

 

[Hexic]

Creative artists general try to avoid scenarios the too closely resemble current events, but maybe you didn't pick up on stuff like that. I'm fine with fictional events in Mexico, or Vietnam since that war is long past. I would prefer that games avoid copying current events or potential events too close to current events. Games are fantasy and fiction and should stay in that realm. We don't need a game where we can cosplay being ICE agents and shooting US citizens in American streets and the reasons why should be obvious.

You’re fine with fictional events in Mexico? The events in Mexico that are currently still causing the US numerous issues with drugs, cartels, hitmen, and billions of tax dollars lost?

You said you prefer avoid video games copying current events… perhaps video games depicting war aren’t meant for you then. Considering most of the CoD games are absolutely based off of -current- middle eastern conflicts that still are issues to this day.

Based on your post, anything pre-gulf 1991 is safe, but absolutely not anything after that.

 

[agentnate009]

You’re fine with fictional events in Mexico? The events in Mexico that are currently still causing the US numerous issues with drugs, cartels, hitmen, and billions of tax dollars lost?

You said you prefer avoid video games copying current events… perhaps video games depicting war aren’t meant for you then. Considering most of the CoD games are absolutely based off of -current- middle eastern conflicts that still are issues to this day.

Based on your post, anything pre-gulf 1991 is safe, but absolutely not anything after that.

I think you are missing a lot of nuance... We are not actively at war with Mexico and probably won't be anytime soon, unlike a lengthy war in the Middle East around the turn of the century and conflict flairing up in that region versus no wars with Mexico since 1848 and not really any indications that we would go to war with them again. Most US military operations are not going to be against drug lords or cartels. I don't regularly encounter people who sympathize with drug lords or cartels. We have Iranians and Iraqi people living in the US and if any games were developed involving military action against the countries of those folks might encourage violence against them even if those Iraqi and Iranian folks disagreed with what is going on in their respective countries. President Sheinbaum already took out a notorious drug lord and is facing some fallout from it because the drug problem is so widespread and they have their fingers in everything.

 

[j4ni1]

I think most people are not interrested in a game whitewashing israeli genocide in the middle east.

 

[SRB]

The problem is that war games are strictly about the fighting. Let's say it's an Israel Iran conflict. does the game limit that to just those two sets or forces? How much does espionage and intelligence play in these "fighting:" games? Do we add factions and proxies? What about allies? These games are extremely simplified and FAR from the real wold of war. Nothing wrong with that, I spent many hours playing GUNSHIP! back in the day, and although it was nowhere near flying a chopper on missions, it was very entertaining going on missions against the Russians. Then again, Russia doesn't have much hardcore support with the political tech community, so that was OK.

Besides, if the current going's on are any example, a "realistic" Iran-Israel conflict doesn't look like it would be much fun or last very long.

 

[JMGuy]

Creative artists general try to avoid scenarios the too closely resemble current events, but maybe you didn't pick up on stuff like that.

That’s a blanket statement that simply doesn’t seem to fit the reality. Sure, developers sometimes fictionalize countries or events, likely to avoid political backlash, but the idea that this genre of games as a whole “generally avoids” real or recent conflicts just doesn’t match what’s actually been produced.

Games have been drawing directly from real, actually-recent or potential conflicts for decades.

I'm fine with fictional events in Mexico, or Vietnam since that war is long past. I would prefer that games avoid copying current events or potential events too close to current events. Games are fantasy and fiction and should stay in that realm. We don't need a game where we can cosplay being ICE agents and shooting US citizens in American streets and the reasons why should be obvious.

Hey, you like what you like. I’ll support anyone who prefers games that stay more fictional—that’s just a preference thing. But historically, the genre has always pulled heavily from real-world wars and it’s not remotely isolated to non-recent conflicts like WW2 or Vietnam.

Bottom line here is that I’m laughing at the hypocrisy on display in the article; not advocating for specific games.

 

[godrilla]

Maybe they were anticipating Harris winning. What would the sequel be? Iran Invades America with open borders, implants government agents with Americaphobia that demand to to free Palestinian in every major City? Oh wait!
I guess Iran being on auto checkmate currently changed their trajectory.

 

[Megalomaniac]

Jews vs. Palestinians was also considered. There was actually a Counterstrike Mod for it. I think this violates a rule that the people in the games must be fictional.

 

[maroon1]

So "pressure" to paint Iran as an aggressive country that attacks poor Israel for no reason into the cultural background is unsurprising to anyone unbiased.

They might not have attacked Israel directly, but for decades Iran has used proxies (like Hezbollah) to attack Israel. When Hassan Nasrallah was killed, some Iranians died with him.

 

[Endymio]

I think most people are not interrested in a game whitewashing israeli genocide in the middle east.

But you're fine with the thousands of movies, games, and sports and entertainment events that whitewash China's genocide in Asia? It was the UN itself that concluded China keeps three million Uighurs in slave-labor genocide camps.

 

[Liranan]

COD has always been war propaganda and the Pentagon has always funded these games to a certain extent.

The Israeli government has been trying to convince the US to go to war with Iran since the Bush administration

Since the 80's, not since Bush. Iran's been two weeks away from the bomb for 40 years.

 

[Endymio]

Since the 80's, not since Bush. Iran's been two weeks away from the bomb for 40 years.

I realize it's fun for some to spread disinformation, but this isn't even remotely correct. A 2001 Dept of State report to Congress found that Iran was "actively pursuing" fissile materials and technology. A 2010 DoD report stated that Iran had acquired 8,000 centrifuges and was building an underground enrichment facility -- it also noted that Iran was having "substantial difficulties" with enrichment, and had NO highly-enriched uranium. The Iran of 2025 has multiple underground enrichment facilities, 22,000 operating centrifuges, and half a metric ton of potentially weapons-grade HEU, with several times that much LEU.

Iran's progress on missiles has been even more marked. Prior to 2000, they were limited to ~300km. Today, they're exceeding 2000km with ballistic missiles, 1500 km with cruise missiles, and, with slight modifications to rockets like their Zuljanah satellite launch vehicles, they can deliver a nuclear payload to any spot on earth.

Unclassified Report to Congress

Iranian arms assessment

 

[arrowflash]

All I want is a massive USA China game.

It already sort of exists. We all know NK in the Homefront series is actually supposed to be China. Same with the Norks in Crysis 1.

Since we're speaking itt about war games we'd like, I'd love to see a few modern, semi-realistic Vietnam war first person shooters. A Vietcong remake or heavy remaster, for example. The closest I got is the "Hours of Darkness" add-on campaign for Far Cry 5, which I really enjoy.

 

[LordVile95]

I realize it's fun for some to spread disinformation, but this isn't even remotely correct. A 2001 Dept of State report to Congress found that Iran was "actively pursuing" fissile materials and technology. A 2010 DoD report stated that Iran had acquired 8,000 centrifuges and was building an underground enrichment facility -- it also noted that Iran was having "substantial difficulties" with enrichment, and had NO highly-enriched uranium. The Iran of 2025 has multiple underground enrichment facilities, 22,000 operating centrifuges, and half a metric ton of potentially weapons-grade HEU, with several times that much LEU.

Iran's progress on missiles has been even more marked. Prior to 2000, they were limited to ~300km. Today, they're exceeding 2000km with ballistic missiles, 1500 km with cruise missiles, and, with slight modifications to rockets like their Zuljanah satellite launch vehicles, they can deliver a nuclear payload to any spot on earth.

Unclassified Report to Congress

Iranian arms assessment

They’re nowhere near weapons grade and you know it. You require 90% enrichment and they haven’t cracked 50. They also then need to actually build the thing which is esiser said than done.

The most dangerous thing Iran could do is make a dirty bomb with Co-60, Cs-137 or I 131

 

[Endymio]

They’re nowhere near weapons grade and you know it. You require 90% enrichment and they haven’t cracked 50.

Wrong on both counts. Iran has 488 kg enriched to 60%. Furthermore, from a perspective of time and unit-cycles expended, 60% enrichment is nearly all the work required to reach 90%. Iran didn't stop because they were having difficulties, but simply because they hoped to not provoke an attack on them.

Nor is 90% a hard requirement. Theoretically, any enrichment to the point capable of supporting a chain reaction can explode: it just requires exponentially more fissile material. On a practical basis, enrichment beyond 35% enables the creation of a crude working bomb.

They also then need to actually build the thing which is esiser said than done.

Any competent physics graduate can build a working nuclear bomb, given an adequate supply of HEU. It is, though, admittedly difficult to build a device compact and resilient enough to be mounted on a ballistic missile -- which is why it's so important to stop Iran from reaching that point.

The most dangerous thing Iran could do is make a dirty bomb with Co-60, Cs-137 or I 131

Please, not the banal "dirty bomb" nonsense again. The only thing these weapons are good for is in frightening those ignorant of radiological basics -- NOT in doing any actual damage or killing people.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

COD has always been war propaganda and the Pentagon has always funded these games to a certain extent.


Since the 80's, not since Bush. Iran's been two weeks away from the bomb for 40 years.

I meant Bush Sr who as in the late 80s .

But I was thinking of specifically of Benjamin Netanyahu who has been claiming the immanent nukes personally for 30 years. I've not researched farther back than that myself.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

I realize it's fun for some to spread disinformation, but this isn't even remotely correct. A 2001 Dept of State report to Congress found that Iran was "actively pursuing" fissile materials and technology. A 2010 DoD report stated that Iran had acquired 8,000 centrifuges and was building an underground enrichment facility -- it also noted that Iran was having "substantial difficulties" with enrichment, and had NO highly-enriched uranium. The Iran of 2025 has multiple underground enrichment facilities, 22,000 operating centrifuges, and half a metric ton of potentially weapons-grade HEU, with several times that much LEU.

Iran's progress on missiles has been even more marked. Prior to 2000, they were limited to ~300km. Today, they're exceeding 2000km with ballistic missiles, 1500 km with cruise missiles, and, with slight modifications to rockets like their Zuljanah satellite launch vehicles, they can deliver a nuclear payload to any spot on earth.

Unclassified Report to Congress

Iranian arms assessment

Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming immanent Iranian nukes since the 90s. There are videos of him holding a cartoon bomb (filled close to the top like a fund raising graphic) during a speeches to the UN and US.

YET said nuke never arrived.

Iran's political and religious leader of 36 years had publicly stated his religious beliefs were against nukes. You can believe that was a lie but said nuke never arrived in 36 years.

March 2025, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard presented the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment to Congress: The Intelligence Community continues to assess that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon.

DNI Gabbard Opening Statement as Delivered to the HPSCI on the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community | Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

www.dni.gov

These are historical facts and an assessment by the very administration that months later said the nukes were immanent. Then months after we destroyed their ability to make nukes we needed to do it again because [insert daily changing reason].