The “clean hands” doctrine, as one of the interpretative approaches to the fundamental rules of international law, serves as a criterion for the admissibility and legitimacy of claims before international tribunals. It requires states seeking legal protection to refrain from unlawful conduct. This doctrine is particularly relevant in assessing the legitimacy of claims and requests brought by different states before international courts and tribunals. However, in the sphere of international politics and media, the doctrine has sometimes been transformed into an instrument deployed through media narratives against various countries, including Iran, to portray an image of “unclean hands” and violations of international norms. This has contributed to the intensification of sanctions and the withdrawal of foreign investors. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines the cases of the arbitration brought by Bank Melli Iran and Bank Saderat Iran against the Central Bank of Bahrain, the case concerning the seizure of assets of the Central Bank of Iran before the International Court of Justice, as well as non-judicial, politically, and economically oriented processes such as the JCPOA negotiations and FATF-related developments. The research analyzes how, despite media and political pressures, international judicial and non-judicial bodies have addressed allegations of Iran’s lack of “clean hands.” It examines the decisions rendered following due consideration and the impacts of these narratives on negotiation processes. The findings highlight the importance of understanding the interaction between law and media in the international arena. They underscore the necessity of developing synergistic strategies in legal and media diplomacy for states.