TEHRAN – Iranian inventor Azin Alizadeh-Asl has secured a gold medal at the sixth International Invention and Innovation Competition for the International Federation of Inventors’ Association (IFIA) IVN Members.
The 6th international competition for inventors and innovators was held online from July 3rd to 5th in Geneva, Switzerland, for INV title holders from around the world.
Alizadeh-Asl, a cardiologist with fellowships in echocardiography and cardio-oncology, is the founder of CardioOncology in Iran and the head of the Cardio-Oncology Department and Research Center, and a faculty member at Shahid Rajaie Heart Center in Tehran, Mehr news agency reported.
She was awarded the gold medal for her invention of ‘Image Clarification Device and Method in Transesophageal Echocardiography’. The innovative scientific achievement is considered a significant breakthrough in enhancing the accuracy of diagnosing heart diseases and improving the standard of patient care.
She has previously showcased her expertise and ingenuity in international community through her inventions. In February 1992, she earned a (silver medal) in the World Chemistry Olympiad in Italy; ranked second in the Cardiovascular Residency Program Exam in Iran in 2002, and placed in the top 10 percent of the Iranian Cardiology Board Exam in 2006.
She introduced an innovation in the field of echocardiography known as Holter Echocardiography and developed an accepted innovation called ‘A Polypill for the Prevention of Cardiotoxicity’. Moreover, Alizadeh-Asl received the International Doody’s Core Titles Award for her Practical Cardiology Book and was recognized by BookAuthority as an author of one of the 100 Best Cardiology Books of All Time.
Following five successful editions, the 2026 competition achieved its highest level of international participation to date, bringing together more than 1,000 invention submissions from IFIA INV Title Holders representing 51 countries across all five continents.
This remarkable achievement reflects the continuous growth of the competition and demonstrates the expanding international influence of IFIA within the global innovation ecosystem.
The participating countries included Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, France, Georgia, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Macau SAR, Malaysia, Malta, Morocco, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela.
In line with the seventh National Development Plan which stresses the need to overcome barriers to women’s professional development, the current administration has put supporting women on the agenda despite unfair sanctions.
Expounding on Iranian women’s experiences in scientific, social, and crisis management fields, the Vice-President for Women and Family Affairs, Zahra Behrouz-Azar, in July said Iranian women comprise over 56 percent of academic communities, around 46 percent of PhD graduates, and more than 68 percent of specialists in basic sciences, while representing a significant share of faculty members, inventors, and knowledge-based companies’ managers.
TEHRAN – Six months later, Trump finds himself trapped in a losing war with no end in sight. Officials around the world are relieved that Iran’s successful resistance has effectively prevented Trump from moving on to his next targets.
On August 26, 2026, John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, appeared as a guest on the Deep Dive geopolitics podcast hosted by retired U.S. Army Colonel Daniel Davis. The two covered the usual topics of the moment: Iran, Ukraine, and Trump’s foreign policy.
Davis, who returned from Afghanistan and, in 2012, exposed how senior U.S. military leaders had misled Congress and the American public about the course of the war there, found himself, as often happens in such discussions, trying with his guest to make sense of American’s strategically irrational policies.
Both agreed that the United States is destined to fail in both Iran and Ukraine, largely because of America’s tendency to pursue reckless and aggressive policies.
Mearsheimer also stressed that America’s global standing has sunk so low that people across the world are actively rooting for the United States and the Israeli regime to lose their war against Iran.
America’s unchecked threats
For Trita Parsi, vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington, the issue is not Iran but the threat posed to others by an America that is unconstrained, or, more accurately, unrestrained to everyone else.
Parsi said he was “stunned” by the number of officials from a wide variety of countries who have privately expressed to him a huge sigh of relief over Tehran’s success in thwarting U.S.-Israeli aggression.
Given that many of these officials represent countries that traditionally support the United States and may even have their own issues with the Islamic Republic, this “implicit endorsement” for Iran says something about the current state of international relations.
There is a sense of relief that aggression and violations of international law have failed to pay off for the U.S. and Israel in Iran.
Venezuela was, in the eyes of many, a frightening precedent. Whatever one’s opinion of Maduro, the idea of a superpower kidnapping another country’s president and his wife, installing its preferred president, who must now obtain the U.S. secretary of state’s approval for her social media posts, and then having Trump gleefully declare that Venezuela had become American territory horrified many nations.
So, too, was the praise from European leaders for the regime-change operation and their disregard for concerns about its legitimacy.
Europe, which broadly opposed George W. Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, has now supported regime change in Venezuela while insisting on the sanctity of international law in Ukraine and Greenland.
The lack of resistance to this made the cost of America’s new colonial-style aggression more bearable. Given Donald Trump’s inclinations, both America’s friends and foes alike feared they could be next.
A losing war with no end
America’s overwhelming military success in Venezuela was one reason Trump and the Zionist lobby were so eager for war with Iran.
If Venezuela had taken only a few hours, he figured Iran would take several days at most. Trump assured skeptical regional leaders that the entire ordeal would not last more than 100 hours, according to one anonymous Arab official.
Six months later, Trump finds himself trapped in a losing war with no end in sight. Officials around the world are relieved that Iran’s successful resistance has effectively prevented Trump from moving on to his next targets.
As one official from a traditional U.S. ally put it: “Had it not been for the resilience of the Iranians, Trump would likely have attacked Cuba by now and perhaps even annexed Greenland.”
These sympathetic feelings toward Iran may have little to do with Iran itself. No overt “official” sympathy for the Islamic Republic is visible, although the public mood seems entirely different. Rather, these sentiments are rooted in pure self-interest.
America’s pursuit of a blatant new colonial foreign policy poses a greater threat to many countries than Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. There is no doubt that the closure harms countries that played no role in encouraging Trump’s disastrous war.
But it is relatively bearable pain. Few states besides Iran have designed their militaries to repel American or Israeli aggression should they land on Trump’s target list. Experts believe that many countries now secretly hope Trump remains bogged down in the Persian Gulf for the foreseeable future. That may be the most effective guarantee against Trump’s rush toward regime change and land grabs.
America: The most immediate threat
We are witnessing a world yearning for balance. From the perspective of many countries, not just the Global South, the United States is the country that most urgently needs to be balanced in the face of its influence and expansion. Not Russia, not Iran, and not North Korea. Certainly not China.
This is simply an objective and accurate assessment of the most immediate source of threat.
A similar situation emerged in 2022, when Russia waged a special military operation in Ukraine. Some countries sympathized with Ukraine. Others placed part of the blame on NATO. But they did not view Russia as a threat to themselves.
Then Washington severed Russia’s ties to the international financial system within five days, setting alarm bells ringing in capitals around the world. Not because they sympathized with Russia or believed the sanctions were unjustified. It was because the United States had demonstrated its ability to damage global economies within days, given the role of the dollar and Washington’s threats to the international community.
Russia’s war in Ukraine exposed no comparable vulnerability among Global South countries to Russian schemes. Yet Washington’s swift response with sanctions revealed the enormous vulnerability of other countries to U.S. whims and capabilities. Essentially, friendship with America offers no shield against Trump’s mood swings.
A Western diplomat told Parsi that she had been trying to persuade her leadership not to push for a “state visit” to Washington. “Nothing good can come of it. It’s simply better not to be on his radar,” the diplomat from a U.S.-allied country said.
As in the jungle, there is protection in avoiding the attention of the top predator. This reality once again demonstrates how disastrous the war on Iran, and neoconservative foreign policy more broadly, has been for the United States itself.
But good governance and wise diplomacy ensure that power is not unjustifiably perceived as a threat by other countries, which will have no choice but to find ways to balance it. Or, as we are seeing now, to balance it through others.
Perhaps Iran and the world do not want America to be defeated and humiliated. Perhaps they simply want it balanced, restrained, and non-aggressive.
TEHRAN — The European Union has pledged to continue working with the United States, the G7 and other international partners to maintain economic and political pressure on Iran, in a move that highlights what critics describe as Brussels’ growing alignment with Washington’s Iran policy despite its earlier calls for restraint and diplomacy.
In a statement issued ahead of this week’s G20 meeting, the EU said it would support efforts aimed at ensuring that Iran, as it described the situation, “ceases its destabilizing activities and engages in peace negotiations in good faith.”
The bloc also endorsed the use of additional economic pressure, including measures linked to the US-led “Operation Economic Outcast,” which Washington has presented as part of its campaign to intensify economic pressure on Tehran.
“The EU will continue to work closely with the United States and other G7 and international partners to maintain pressure on Iran and contribute to de-escalation and regional stability,” the statement said.
The EU’s position reflects a significant evolution in Europe’s approach to the conflict. At the beginning of the US-Israeli war against Iran, several European governments publicly stressed that they had not participated in the attacks and called for diplomacy and restraint. European officials also expressed concern that the conflict could escalate into a wider regional war with serious consequences for energy supplies, trade and migration.
A report by the Council on Foreign Relations noted that the US launched its military operation with little or no consultation with its European allies, leaving European governments divided over the use of force and the extent to which they should support Washington.
Germany, France and Britain initially resisted direct involvement in the US military campaign. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, for example, questioned whether Washington had a convincing plan for achieving its objectives and said European governments had not been consulted before the operation began.
However, European governments have gradually moved closer to Washington’s position, particularly through sanctions and political pressure on Tehran.
Europe’s shifting position raises questions over policy effectiveness
The shift has prompted criticism from analysts who argue that Europe is repeating a pattern of failed policies by attempting to exert pressure on Iran while lacking an independent diplomatic strategy capable of influencing the course of the conflict.
Sophia Besch of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argued in April that Europe should avoid simply “falling in line” with Washington and instead develop a strategy that allows it to engage with the conflict independently. She noted that the United States had gone to war with Iran without consulting European governments, while the Trump administration subsequently criticized European allies for failing to provide sufficient support.
A separate analysis by Poland’s Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW) said European governments had acknowledged that they lacked effective instruments to exert pressure on Tehran or control its actions. It also warned that European governments were concerned that the US-Israeli military campaign lacked a realistic long-term plan and could produce further destabilization, with economic and migration consequences for Europe itself.
These assessments raise questions over the effectiveness of a European strategy increasingly centered on sanctions and coordination with Washington. Rather than creating an independent European diplomatic channel, Brussels appears to be moving toward greater synchronization with the US pressure campaign, even as the costs of the conflict increasingly affect European economies.
The economic consequences are particularly significant. The ongoing conflict around the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted energy markets and contributed to higher oil and gas prices. European Central Bank policymaker Olli Rehn has warned that the prolonged conflict could keep inflation in the eurozone above the ECB’s target, with eurozone inflation reaching 3.3 percent in August.
Pressure from Washington and the limits of European autonomy
The European shift has also taken place under sustained pressure from the Trump administration. Washington has repeatedly demanded greater European support for its war against Iran, while criticizing European countries for refusing to provide direct military assistance.
In the early stages of the conflict, European governments rejected calls to participate directly in efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. France, for example, said it would not take part in operations to open or “liberate” the waterway under the circumstances at the time.
Washington’s pressure nevertheless continued. US officials accused European allies of failing to meet what they considered their responsibilities, while President Donald Trump repeatedly demanded greater assistance from NATO members.
The evolution of Europe’s position therefore illustrates what critics describe as a broader failure of EU foreign policy: Brussels has sought to preserve its transatlantic relationship while simultaneously presenting itself as an independent diplomatic actor, but the Iran conflict has exposed the limits of that approach.
Brookings analysts have described Europe’s initial approach to the war as a serious miscalculation, arguing that many European governments hoped a short conflict might lead to political change in Iran. They concluded that this expectation proved mistaken and that the war exposed Europe’s weaknesses in dealing with the crisis.
The criticism comes as the United States itself faces growing questions over the effectiveness of its Iran strategy. A recent Council on Foreign Relations assessment said the US war had failed to produce the quick victory predicted by Trump and that Washington now faced a situation in which it had few good options.
Reuters has similarly reported that, six months into the conflict, the war had developed into a costly stalemate, with Iran’s government remaining in place despite severe economic pressure and a US naval blockade that has sharply constrained Iranian oil exports.
Against this backdrop, the EU’s decision to maintain pressure on Tehran risks tying Europe more closely to a US strategy whose stated objectives have yet to be fully achieved.
For Iran, the latest European statement is likely to be viewed as further evidence that the EU has moved away from its earlier emphasis on diplomacy and toward alignment with Washington’s coercive approach.
For Europe, meanwhile, the central question is increasingly whether following Washington’s pressure campaign can deliver the stability the EU says it seeks — or whether it will instead deepen the economic and geopolitical costs of a conflict over which European governments have limited influence.
New US missile raises civilian casualty concerns after first use in Iran war
TEHRAN — The apparent first combat use of a new US precision missile during the war against Iran has raised fresh concerns over the potential impact of advanced American weapons on civilian populations, with an investigation by Airwars finding evidence that the munition scattered lethal fragments across an area far wider than its publicly advertised fragmentation radius.
An Airwars analysis of three apparent Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) attacks in the southern Iranian city of Lamerd on February 28, the first day of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, found that one strike produced visible damage extending at least 170 meters from the estimated point of detonation. Civilians were reportedly killed at distances of up to more than 50 meters from the explosion.
According to the investigation, the attacks killed at least 21 civilians, including at least seven children and two women, while as many as 170 others were injured.
The findings are particularly significant because the PrSM is designed not simply to destroy a target through a conventional blast, but to detonate shortly before reaching the ground and disperse tens of thousands of metal pellets in a 360-degree pattern.
The weapon's fragmentation mechanism means that people, buildings and vehicles within its lethal or damaging range can be struck by high-velocity projectiles even if they are not located directly at the point of impact.
Airwars said the distinctive pattern left by the munition was visible across streets, buildings and vehicles in Lamerd. Rather than the large crater normally associated with many conventional missile strikes, the aftermath showed thousands of small impact marks consistent with the dispersal of fragmentation pellets.
A weapon designed for long-range precision
The PrSM is manufactured by Lockheed Martin and is launched from the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS. The company says the missile can strike targets at ranges of up to 500 kilometers, making it a significantly longer-range weapon than earlier systems employing similar fragmentation technology.
Each missile is reportedly capable of carrying approximately 180,000 pellets, although key technical details, including the exact size of its warhead and the distance its fragments can travel, have not been publicly disclosed.
The missile appears to be an evolution of the Alternate Warhead version of the US Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System. That weapon also disperses large numbers of pellets but has a reported range of about 70 kilometers, less than one-sixth that of the PrSM.
The apparent use of the PrSM in Iran therefore represents more than the deployment of another battlefield weapon. It demonstrates the extension of a fragmentation-based strike capability to considerably greater distances, while raising questions about how such a weapon can be employed safely in or near populated areas.
Airwars said neither the US Department of War nor Lockheed Martin has publicly specified the PrSM's fragmentation or lethal radius. By contrast, promotional material produced by Lockheed Martin appears to indicate a maximum fragmentation radius of roughly 50 meters. The damage documented in Lamerd was therefore more extensive than the radius suggested by the promotional material analyzed by Airwars.
Michael Meier, a former Special Assistant to the US Army Judge Advocate General for the Law of Armed Conflict, warned that the weapon's use in densely populated locations could create an inherent risk to civilians. “You would be hard pressed to find a reason to use the PrSM in a densely populated area,” Meier said, adding that if the lethality radius were around 100 meters, civilian casualties would be inevitable.
Three strikes in less than a minute
Airwars reconstructed the sequence of events using CCTV footage, images published by Iranian media and testimonies collected by journalists who visited the affected locations.
The investigation identified three separate strikes over a distance of roughly 550 meters in the Shahrak Isar and Tal-e Khandagh residential neighborhoods and at the Shahid Naimi sports hall. The strikes reportedly occurred within approximately 31 seconds.
The first strike hit Shahrak Isar at approximately 17:37:46. Airwars identified damage extending almost 80 meters from the estimated impact point. Masoumeh Monfared and her son, Abedin Gharibdoos, were reportedly killed outside their home, around 40 meters from the estimated epicenter.
Ten seconds later, another missile reportedly struck the Tal-e Khandagh neighborhood. Two-year-old Avina Barzegar was killed while playing in the yard of her home. A memorial marker identifies the location, which Airwars estimated to be approximately 50 meters from the missile's estimated point of detonation. The investigation identified observable pellet damage extending at least that far.
The third strike hit the Shahid Naimi sports hall at approximately 17:38:17. At least seven civilians were reportedly killed, most of them children.
Among the victims was 12-year-old Ilya Khatami, who was reportedly struck while attempting to flee after playing football. Another boy, Abdul Mosavar Rahmani, and football coach Mahmoud Najafi were also killed. Two teenage girls, Helma Ahmadizadeh and Elham Zaeri, were reportedly killed inside the sports center while practicing volleyball.
The investigation also identified damage at a learning center approximately 170 meters from the sports hall strike. Airwars described this as the furthest documented damage associated with the three attacks, although it cautioned that the actual radius could have been greater because of limitations in the available imagery.
Dispute over responsibility
The US military has denied responsibility for the Lamerd strikes. US Central Command argued that CCTV footage was consistent with the dimensions and silhouette of an Iranian Hoveyzeh cruise missile.
However, damage analysis cited by Airwars from The New York Times challenged that assessment. Experts consulted in that analysis reportedly concluded that the pattern of destruction was inconsistent with a Hoveyzeh missile and instead identified the weapons as PrSMs, making the Lamerd attacks the missile's likely first known combat use.
The distinction is important because the physical evidence left at the sites corresponds to the PrSM's known operating concept. The missile reportedly detonates 15 to 20 meters above the ground, distributing fragments over a broad area rather than producing a single large crater.
Airwars also found no reports indicating that militants were killed or military infrastructure was struck at the three locations. An Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps compound is located north of the sports hall, but the investigation found no evidence that it was the target of the attacks.
Meier stressed that the legality of a strike depends on assessing the military target, the anticipated effects of the weapon and whether expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
He also questioned the apparent military rationale of the strike, noting that the IRGC compound remained standing and therefore asking whether it could have been considered a sufficiently high-value target to justify the potential effects of the weapon.
A weapon likely to shape future conflicts
The controversy surrounding the PrSM comes as the United States moves to substantially expand production of the weapon.
In July, the US Department of War announced an $8.4 billion contract with Lockheed Martin to accelerate PrSM production. Britain subsequently announced a deal to acquire the missiles as well.
The scale of investment suggests that the missile is expected to become an increasingly important component of US and allied long-range strike capabilities.
Yet the Lamerd strikes have placed a critical question at the center of the debate: whether a weapon capable of dispersing enormous numbers of lethal fragments across a wide area can be reliably employed in environments where civilian populations and military targets exist in close proximity.
For Iran, the findings add to concerns over the civilian consequences of the US-Israeli military campaign. Beyond the immediate casualties, they raise broader questions about the growing use of long-range precision weapons whose effects can extend considerably beyond their intended points of impact.
The central concern is therefore not simply the range or accuracy of the PrSM, but the consequences of deploying a highly destructive fragmentation weapon in populated areas. As the United States and its allies invest heavily in expanding such capabilities, the experience in Lamerd could become an important case in assessing whether claims of precision and deep-strike capability adequately account for the risks borne by civilians on the ground.
File photo shows the building housing Yemen’s foreign ministry in the capital Sana’a.
Yemen’s ministry of foreign affairs has pledged that the Arab Peninsula nation would stand by Iran’s side amid continued unprovoked American aggression, expressing support for the Islamic Republic’s response to the aggressor as a legitimate right.
In a statement on Tuesday, the ministry said continued US violations against the Islamic Republic would not “undermine Iran’s resolve or its determination to stand firm.”
Iran’s response, it added, constitutes a legitimate right recognized under international norms, treaties, and international law.
Warning over regional escalation
The ministry also denounced Washington for contributing to rising tensions across the region and warned that the consequences would extend to the United States and those supporting the aggression.
“The United States is pushing the region towards escalating tensions. The United States, itself, as well as the parties supporting it, will bear responsibility for the consequences of these actions,” it said.
The statement further singled out states that have allowed their territories to be used as platforms for the aggression, saying they “must pay the price for their complete dependence on the United States.”
The statement came after the United States attacked targets inside Iran, especially in the country’s south, striking civilian objects.
Shrapnel from one attack hit a house in Hormozgan Province’s Sirik County, martyring five people, including a child, and wounding 68 others.
Shortly following the latest aggression, Iran’s Armed Forces began staging a series of combined retaliatory operations featuring missile and drone strikes targeting regional American bases and interests.
Earlier attacks had also hit Chabahar and Konarak Counties in Sistan and Baluchestan, another southern Iranian province, and the Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz, prompting Iranian servicemen to stage a reprisal against US forces stationed in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.
Lindsay Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse in Massachusetts, US, is accused of killing her three children – Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months – at their home in Duxbury on January 24, 2023. She then attempted to take her own life by jumping from a second-story window, an act that left her paralyzed.
Clancy has admitted to killing her children but has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. She says she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and believed that voices were telling her to kill them.
Postpartum psychosis is a rare but extremely serious psychiatric disorder that can cause hallucinations, delusions, confusion, extreme mood changes, and a loss of contact with reality. It affects roughly one to two mothers in every 1,000 births and is considered a psychiatric emergency because it can lead to suicide or infanticide.
The case has sparked a major debate over mental illness and criminal responsibility. Clancy's lawyers argue that she was experiencing severe psychiatric problems and had been prescribed numerous medications. Prosecutors, however, contend that she understood what she was doing and deliberately sent her husband out of the house before killing the children.
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told the jury that Clancy had an “abundance” of medical care and resources, rather than a lack of them.
But the story did not end with the deaths of three children. The case took another disturbing turn as some of Clancy's supporters began portraying her not as the mother accused of killing her children, but primarily as a victim herself.
That reaction has become one of the most troubling dimensions of the case, raising difficult questions about how society responds when severe mental illness, motherhood, criminal responsibility, and an unfathomable act of violence collide – and about the limits of sympathy when the victims are three innocent children.
Why are so many American women defending Clancy?
The reaction to Lindsay Clancy has grown far beyond the courtroom. Women across the United States have rallied around her and filled social media with messages defending her actions.
Hundreds have gathered outside the Massachusetts courthouse in pink shirts, carrying signs reading “Believe,” “She Needed Help” and “Peace for Lindsay.”
Many supporters have argued that Clancy was failed by the health-care system because of her mental-health problems. Some have shared their own experiences with postpartum depression and other mental-health problems and said they see themselves in her.
But others have gone much further, openly defending Clancy despite her open admission that she was directly responsible for the deaths of her three children.
Women have also posted videos holding their own babies and children while using phrases such as “Same, Lindsay” and “Me too, Lindsay.”
The scale of the support for Clancy is also reflected in the money raised on behalf of her family. More than $1 million has been donated by around 31,000 people as her murder trial moves toward its conclusion.
There is nothing wrong with treating mental illness seriously, say mental health practitioners, but turning Clancy into a figure of solidarity crosses a very different line. The victims were three children, yet much of the attention has centered on the woman at the heart of the case.
For many Americans, a crime that should have brought horror and grief has instead become a source of identification, admiration and even imitation.
Lindsay Clancy with her children (L), and inside the courtroom (R).
How did a child-killing case become an online cause?
TikTok played a major role in turning the Clancy case into an online phenomenon in the US. Users began posting videos about the trial, discussing its details and encouraging others to support her family.
One of them, Brandee Mulligan, became deeply involved in the case and started a fundraiser for Clancy’s parents, Michael and Paula Musgrove.
Her videos attracted hundreds of thousands of views, helping push the campaign far beyond the people who had gathered outside the courthouse.
The fundraiser passed $1 million from nearly 31,000 donations in August. It had started with a $500,000 goal, which was later raised to $2 million. Mulligan told followers, “Let us just build them up and surround them with love.”
The campaign says it does not take a position on Clancy’s guilt or innocence. Yet its enormous reach shows how easily a case involving the deaths of three children has been transformed into an online community built around their mother and her family.
The trial itself has also become material for social-media content. Users have dissected testimony, studied medical records, created theories and followed courtroom developments like episodes of a television series. Some have even made reenactments.
The obsession became so deep that Clancy’s defense team tried to bring a TikTok influencer into the courtroom as a witness. The judge rejected her testimony, but the episode showed how far the internet had entered the case.
Others have used the case to spread conspiracy theories, including unsupported accusations against Clancy’s former husband.
Instead of remaining a court case about three dead children, it has become a stream of videos, theories, fundraising and online personalities.
How did sympathy turn into imitation?
The online reaction took an even stranger turn when the phrase “Same, Lindsay” became a TikTok trend. Mothers began filming themselves holding or rocking their own babies while excerpts from Clancy's journals appeared on screen.
Some cried as they held their children, while reports indicated that thousands of women had joined a Facebook group centered on identifying with Clancy.
The trend drew fierce backlash because participants were using images of their own children while referencing the writings of a mother accused of killing hers.
The videos went beyond discussions of postpartum illness. By publicly identifying themselves with Clancy, some participants appeared to express sympathy for her in ways that critics viewed as crossing a disturbing line.
The use of children in these videos made the trend particularly unsettling. Three children had already died in the case, yet other mothers were bringing their own children into social-media content connected to it.
The spectacle also spread into other forms of online content. Some users created Bratz-doll reenactments of events surrounding the case, while others conducted bizarre experiments based on details discussed during the trial.
Social-media users also formed fan communities around the lawyers and treated testimony, medical records, and other evidence as material for endless speculation and theories about what had happened.
Women wearing pink in the US take to the streets in support of Lindsay Clancy.
Are other women crossing the same line?
The Clancy case has since been followed by two other cases that have drawn disturbing comparisons.
In North Dakota, 22-year-old Kailey Erhart attacked her three children with a knife on August 6, killing her 5-month-old and 3-year-old daughters and seriously injuring her 1-year-old son.
Before the attack, Erhart reportedly held a gun and told the children's father, “Say goodbye to your kids.”
Online commentators have described her as a “Lindsay Clancy copycat,” pointing to what they see as striking similarities between the two cases.
A separate case in Florida has also been compared with Clancy's. Meliza Campos-Sanchez, 26, was arrested after videos showed her pouring hot wax on her two daughters before setting a fire inside her home.
The footage was posted on Instagram, adding another disturbing dimension to the case, which is that violence against children was not only committed, but recorded and shared online.
Can mental illness explain what happened?
The debate over Clancy’s mental state should not overshadow what happened to her children.
Postpartum psychosis is a real and serious illness, doctors agree, but its existence alone does not determine whether someone should be held responsible for killing. That question is now before the jury, which must decide whether Clancy understood that her actions were wrong.
Bethany Mandel, a mother of six who has criticized the sympathy shown to Clancy, said the children have been pushed aside by the attention surrounding their mother.
“We all know her name,” Mandel said. “Very few people know the names of her children.”
Jonathan Hatami, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who specializes in child-abuse cases, made a similar point. He said the case had become “about her” when the focus should be on the victims and what was done to them. “These children died,” Hatami said.
Their criticism exposes a distressing imbalance in the reaction to Clancy. Mental illness deserves treatment and compassion, but compassion should not erase the victims or turn the person who killed three children into the central victim of the story.
Cora, Dawson and Callan cannot explain their suffering, defend themselves or ask for another chance. They are dead, while the adults around them continue debating how to understand the person who ended their lives.
US national pride lowest in two decades: Poll
What does this say about American society?
The reaction has exposed something deeper than sympathy for one defendant: a troubling shift in American society toward viewing motherhood itself as an unbearable burden from which women need to be rescued.
On TikTok, some American mothers filmed themselves throwing ice into bathtubs while their children were nearby, saying the act helps them deal with anger without hurting their children.
That language matters, according to psychologists. Clancy’s case involved three children, who were killed, yet online response has shifted the focus toward whether mothers are suffering enough, rather than what happens when adult suffering eclipses a child’s right to safety.
Kara Kennedy, who examined the trend, pointed to the irony of women being encouraged to view motherhood primarily through exhaustion, resentment and personal suffering while Clancy is treated by some as a symbol of that struggle.
The result is a disturbing inversion of responsibility. In a society where children are supposed to depend on adults for protection, they have become secondary to the emotions of the adults.
America can have serious failures in mental-health care without teaching people to view the destruction of their own families as an understandable expression of maternal pain.
What makes the phenomenon even more troubling is that these are not anonymous conversations hidden in private.
American women are putting their own faces, their own children and their own emotions into public videos and attaching them to the story of a mother who killed her children.
The line between saying “mothers need help” and saying “I could be Lindsay” is enormous. Yet American social media has allowed some people to cross it publicly, blurring the boundary between recognizing maternal distress and normalizing the unimaginable.
