Iraqi Resistance’s "Missile City" a Message of Resolve to the US

Alwaght- In a landmark move and amid escalating tensions between the US and Iran and speculations about a new war in the region, some factions within Iraq's Public Mobilization Forces (PMF) have displayed part of their weapons.

Saraya Awliya Al-Dam which is a branch of the PMF in a footage unveiled part of its underground rocket arsenal, drawing media and observer attention.

The military showoff included tunnels where rockets and launchers are stored and could be moved and mobilized for firing. 

The released footage shows the group’s fighters moving underground alongside a truck carrying several ballistic missiles. This demonstrates both the Iraqi resistance's acquisition of advanced ballistic missiles and the scale and capacity of the group’s missile storage facilities.

Alongside the display of equipment, the appearance of several senior regional resistance leaders in the videos adds a symbolic dimension to the unveiling. The message was clear: the recent action is not a limited or local decision, but one framed within the broader Axis of Resistance, a regional bloc comprising anti-American actors, and in coordination with major regional developments.

Saraya Awliya Al-Dam has previously taken clear positions against the US military presence in Iraq, directly linking current developments to regional conditions, especially the situation concerning Iran. The group has repeatedly emphasized that in this sensitive phase, there is no room for neutrality.

The group announced its formation in September 2020 following the assassination of Iran's General Qassem Suleimani and Iraq’s Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, two of the key anti-terror commanders in the region. Since then, the movement has been named in security and media reports as one of the active actors opposing the presence of American forces in Iraq.

For example, reports from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy have also attributed responsibility for attacks on the Ain al-Asad airbase, as well as operations against the Harir base in Erbil, to this group.

PMF's missile capabilities 

The "missile city" is a part of broader arsenal the Iraqi resistance groups have gradually built in over a decade.

Though there is no official and precise information available about the range, type, and precision of the missiles, field developments and unofficial reports suggest that the Iraqi resistance has at its possession a diverse range of rockets and enjoys considerable operational power.

Currently, the PMF operates rockets of Zilzal (quake) and Fajir (Dawn) of Iranian origins. These rockets are mainly designed for multi-launches and play an effective role kn short and mid-range firings.

Additionally, the Iraqi resistance factions have managed to develop domestic types of Batar rockets, as well as versions of Salam-1 missiles. Batar rocket, which has a range of 5 kilometers, is capable of carrying relatively heavy payload and and is seen as one of the primary weapons achievements of the PMF. The rocket was used extensively during anti-ISIS combats and played an integral part in liberation of parts of Salahaddin and Anbar provinces captured since 2014 by the terrorist group.

While the technical details of the Salam-1 missile, such as its precision and destructive power, have not been officially released, initial test launches have demonstrated its high effectiveness in close-quarters battle.

Alongside these weapons, some Iraqi resistance groups also possess guided anti-armor missiles like the Kornet, designed to counter heavy armor and posing a serious threat to enemy mechanized equipment. 122mm Katyusha rockets continue to form part of these groups' arsenals.

Furthermore, with the eruption of the Gaza war, the Iraqi resistance announced the operational deployment of the Aqsa-1 medium-range missile, signaling expanding missile capabilities of these groups.

Message of warning

Unveiling the underground rocket infrastructure by Iran-aligned Saraya Awliya Al-Dam bears a clear message to the US and Israeli regime, telling them that the resistance groups hold the full capacity and capability to respond to any aggression against Iran and Iraq.

Defining themselves as part of the broader Axis of Resistance, these groups find any strikes against Iran's territorial integrity or its political system as a strike to the while Axis, and they have several times repeated their warnings about any American miscalculation.

Reports indicate Iraqi armed groups have stepped up their readiness and declared full support for Iran should any conflict break out. The Badr Organization in a statement described the current situation as a decisive battle and explicitly stated that in such conditions, silence and neutrality are "meaningless."

The Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades also issued a statement calling on their forces to prepare for a comprehensive confrontation. The Al-Nujaba Movement adopted a similar stance, warning that any attack on Iran could push the region toward a broad conflict.

In this climate, a key message of unveiling the underground military installations is to display the depth of the Iraqi resistance's capabilities that have been developed covertly and continuously, even during the country's prolonged occupation.

This fact is highly significant that despite over two decades of American military presence in Iraq and its access to the most advanced intelligence systems, the construction of the resistance's missile city remained hidden from the occupying forces.

Furthermore, the unveiling by one of the smaller groups within the PMF paints a clear picture of the potential capacity of other factions, such as Hezbollah and Al-Nujaba, which possess greater resources and capabilities, and have likely not yet revealed a significant portion of their strength.

This move, beyond reinforcing deterrence, sends a clear message to regional adversaries that any military adventurism will incur heavy and unpredictable costs. Additionally, the Iraqi resistance's achievement in designing and deploying missiles alters the regional balance of power and will nullify American efforts to weaken or dissolve these groups.

Iraq's role in a regional war equation

Developments of recent years have shown that the resistance groups in the region from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen to Palestine do not depend absolutely on Tehran in their decisions and actions and they take action independently whenever they feel a need to defend the oppressed and protect the interests of the Resistance camp.

Gaza war was a clear example of this reality. This conflict was a point where various branches of resistance, coordinated on the ground under the "unity of fronts" strategy, played their part and each held a specific responsibility in the fight against the Israeli regime and its main ally the US. At present, relying on its strategic position, Iraq follows an independent path in the confrontation between Tehran and Washington while the resistance groups of this country act with fire-at-will approach.

The logic steering this approach is that a threat against Tehran could serve as a prelude to targeting Iraq. From this dimension, countering aggression and protecting the interests of the Resistance camp is seen an obligation, independent of external directives. This process indicates that Iraq has evolved beyond a mere supporter into an active and deterrent player in the regional balance of power, while maintaining its operational independence within the framework of the Axis of Resistance.

The new exodus of Israelis: Decolonizing Palestine beyond territory

 By Ranjan Solomon

GOA — Zionism required the creation of what its founders called the “New Jew” - a radical reengineering of Jewish identity severed from centuries of ethical, diasporic, and humanist traditions. Judaism, historically shaped by moral restraint, community life, and learning, was recast into a nationalist and militarized project. In this transformation, Jewish ethics were subordinated to the imperatives of conquest, settlement, and permanent war.

This ideological rupture did not merely reshape politics; it reshaped the Jewish self. The “New Israeli” was masculinized, armed, and disciplined through military service, with the Israeli military forces positioned as the primary moral institution of society. Zionism thus became not simply a political ideology but an identity regime - one that conflated Jewishness with loyalty to a settler-colonial project.

Following the ongoing genocide in Gaza, a growing body of scholars, activists, and dissident Jewish voices argue that any genuine decolonization of Palestine must go beyond land restitution. It must include the decolonization of Israeli consciousness itself - separating Judaism from Zionism and liberating Jewish identity from a project that has fused survival with domination.

One symptom of this deep crisis is the accelerating emigration from Israel itself.

A wave of departure

Since the events of October 7, 2023, and the devastating military assault on Gaza that followed, the Zionist entity has witnessed a sharp and unprecedented rise in outward migration. 

Officials and analysts within Israel have described this phenomenon as a “tsunami,” reflecting both its scale and its structural implications.

In the first seven months of 2024 alone, approximately 40,600 Israelis left for long-term stays abroad—an increase of nearly 60 percent compared to the same period in 2023. The total number of long-term departures in 2023 reached 82,800, up from 59,400 the previous year. For the first time in its history, Israel recorded a sustained negative migration balance: more people left than returned.

This is not a temporary fluctuation. Between 2020 and August 2024, net emigration reached nearly 146,000 residents. Surveys among Israelis currently living abroad show that nearly 80 percent have no intention of returning.

Those leaving are disproportionately drawn from highly educated, high-income sectors—particularly in technology, medicine, and academia. Many possess dual citizenship or are able to obtain it quietly, often choosing not to announce their departure due to the deep stigma attached to yerida—the Zionist term for emigration, literally meaning “descent.”

Germany, Canada, and several European states have reported marked increases in visa, residency, and citizenship applications from Israelis since late 2023. These are largely silent exits, reflecting not panic but calculation.

Fear, not guilt, drives the exodus

Contrary to some moralistic interpretations, this wave of emigration is not primarily driven by guilt over the destruction of Gaza or the historic dispossession of Palestinians. Rather, it is driven by fear—raw, existential fear - and by a profound collapse of faith in the Zionist promise of security.

October 7 shattered a core myth that the militarized state could guarantee safety. For many Israelis, particularly families with young children, the belief that permanent war could coexist with normal life has finally broken down. Continuous rocket fire, regional escalation, and the prospect of wider conflict have produced a pervasive sense of vulnerability.

Political disillusionment compounds this fear. Long before the Gaza genocide, Israeli society was riven by mass protests against judicial restructuring and authoritarian drift. Secular, liberal, and highly educated Israelis increasingly feel alienated in a political order dominated by religious nationalism, messianic settler ideology, and permanent emergency rule. 

Many now openly describe the regime as sliding toward theocracy or dictatorship.

Economic pressures further accelerate departure. The cost of living crisis, housing shortages, and declining public services - exacerbated by prolonged war - have made life increasingly untenable for young professionals. A sustained “brain drain” now threatens the economic base of the Zionist project itself.

For parents, the overriding question is the future of their children. Raising a generation in a society defined by militarization, trauma, and international isolation no longer appears viable.

The unspoken question of responsibility

While fear and instability are the primary drivers, guilt operates in more complex and indirect ways. Some Israeli psychologists and social analysts argue that Israeli society carries an unacknowledged collective trauma linked to the Nakba—the mass displacement of Palestinians in 1948—and the ongoing occupation.

A small number of left-leaning emigrants have articulated this more explicitly, stating that remaining within Israel forces complicity in violence they morally oppose. Others express guilt of a different kind: guilt for leaving during a crisis, shaped by decades of Zionist indoctrination that framed emigration as betrayal.

Yet these moral tensions remain marginal. The dominant motivation remains personal survival and future security, not ethical reckoning.

International isolation and collapsing legitimacy

As emigration accelerates, Israel’s international standing continues to deteriorate. Public opinion across Western Europe has reached historic lows. Recent YouGov EuroTrack surveys conducted in Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, and Spain show that only 13 to 21 percent of respondents hold a favorable view of Israel, while 63 to 70 percent express unfavorable opinions.

Approval of Israel’s military actions in Gaza has collapsed. In most surveyed countries, fewer than one in six respondents believe the assault has been proportionate or justified. Even among traditional allies, the Zionist entity is increasingly perceived as a destabilizing and lawless force.

This erosion of legitimacy carries material consequences: growing calls for sanctions, arms embargoes, legal accountability, and diplomatic isolation. The image of Israel as a moral refuge for Jews has been replaced by that of a pariah regime.

Structural crises within the Zionist project

Mainstream analysts within Israel and abroad acknowledge multiple converging crises. Militarily, Israel faces sustained resistance from non-state actors and the risk of regional escalation. Internally, political polarization, the privileging of ultra-Orthodox communities, and the permanent mobilization of society have hollowed out civic life.

Demographically, maintaining a Jewish majority through settlement and displacement grows ever more untenable. 

Internationally, reliance on unconditional Western backing appears increasingly fragile. Historically, Zionism positioned Israel as a solution to European antisemitism—a Western problem exported to the Middle East. That framing now lies in ruins.

What critical voices are saying

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has repeatedly warned that Israeli society is undergoing a moral collapse. Writing from within, he describes a culture of cruelty, denial, and dehumanization, in which Palestinian suffering is erased and dissent is criminalized. Levy argues that permanent occupation has destroyed the ethical foundations of Israeli society and rendered any two-state solution impossible.

Historian Ilan Pappé goes further, describing the current phase as “neo-Zionism”—more aggressive, more explicit, and more ruthless than earlier iterations. In his view, this is not renewal but terminal acceleration: an attempt to achieve through extreme violence what earlier Zionists sought gradually. Such projects, Pappé argues, ultimately implode.

Among younger Jewish generations, particularly in the diaspora, disillusionment is growing. Many no longer identify with a project aligned with Islamophobia, ethnonationalism, and authoritarian politics. The intergenerational rupture is widening, and it is irreversible.

Beyond Zionism

Israeli society today appears increasingly fragmented, exhausted, and incapable of sustaining its current trajectory. 
Scholars speak of an emerging post-Zionist horizon—not as a utopia, but as a necessity. Such a future would require abandoning the colonial framework altogether and imagining shared political life rooted in equality rather than supremacy.

-Four forces now converge against Zionism:
-Escalating violence and repression
-Shifting global public opinion
-Moral and political exhaustion

Growing Jewish disengagement from Zionist ideology

The current emigration wave is not merely demographic. It is ideological. It signals a profound loss of belief in the founding myth itself.

Decolonizing Palestine will not be achieved through borders alone. It will require dismantling the structures - material, psychological, and ideological—that made permanent domination appear normal. The new exodus of Israelis is not an accident of war; it is a symptom of a settler project reaching its limits.

Dr. Ranjan Solomon is a veteran social justice activist and writer who has long supported global movements, particularly those advocating for Palestinian freedom.

(The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of the Tehran Times.)

Tags

• Zionism
 
• Israel
 
• Gaza

Over 70 diagnostic, therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals being produced in Iran

TEHRAN – Iran has achieved a distinguished position in the region in the field of radiopharmaceuticals and biotechnological drugs, manufacturing 70 types of diagnostic and therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals domestically, the head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said.

Iran’s self-sufficiency in producing radiopharmaceuticals is a strategic accomplishment for the health system, placing the country among regional leading nations in this field, IRNA quoted Mehdi Pirsalehi as saying.

Due to the short half-lives of radiopharmaceuticals and restrictions from sanctions, importing these radioactive drugs is practically impossible. Therefore, their domestic production plays a decisive role in meeting patients’ needs, the official stressed.

Highlighting that the country ranks among the top three in the biotechnology sector in the region, Pirsalehi said knowledge-based companies that started their activities some 24 years ago have now become major industries employing thousands of specialists.

The official went on to say that the country has entered modern pharmaceutical technologies, reaching the final phases of various projects such as personalized medicine and cell and gene therapy, and that some products have obtained production licenses.

In August 2025, Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI), said heavy water derivatives and plasma medicine are opening new frontiers in drug development and medical treatment, marking a major step in the application of nuclear technology to public health.

He announced that a new cooperation agreement has been signed to advance plasma medicine research and national projects, describing it as “a document of collective will” to strengthen healthcare through advanced technology.

Eslami added that under a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Health, clinical trials that were previously concentrated at Tehran University will be expanded to selected universities across the country.

“This will accelerate the spread of plasma-based technologies to different provinces,” he said, “ensuring that all Iranians can benefit equally and simultaneously from these advances.”

The remarks came during ceremonies marking National Physicians Day, where Eslami also highlighted the AEOI’s success in producing more than 70 types of radiopharmaceuticals, now supplied to over 220 nuclear medicine centers across Iran and exported abroad. He said these products are used in diagnostics, palliative care, and therapy, while another 20 radiopharmaceuticals are currently under research and clinical trials.

Currently, Iran produces more than 70 types of radiopharmaceuticals, supplying over 220 nuclear medicine centers nationwide. These products, Eslami said, cover three categories: diagnostic, therapeutic, and palliative.

In the diagnostic field, advances are pushing “the frontiers of knowledge,” improving precision so doctors can better examine patients’ bodies. On the therapeutic side, he added, the focus is on easing patients’ suffering while providing more effective treatments.

Eslami revealed that around 20 additional radiopharmaceuticals are currently under research and in clinical trial phases, reflecting Iran’s growing capacity to integrate nuclear science into healthcare.

Biotech holds 60% share of pharmaceutical exports

Biotechnology products account for a major portion of Iran’s pharmaceutical exports, with a share of 60 percent.

Some 99 percent of pharmaceutical biotechnology products are manufactured domestically, Mehr news agency quoted Haleh Ahmadi, the head of the association of pharmaceutical biotechnology producers and exporters, as saying in September.

Biotechnology products are exported to 40 countries worldwide, compared to 35 countries in the past Iranian calendar year (March 2024 – March 2025). The exported medicines are worth 120 – 130 million dollars, Ahmadi said.

Thanks to the pharmaceutical biotechnology producers, the country is saving 5 billion dollars, which would have otherwise been spent on importing these products, she noted.

Currently, 45 pharmaceutical biotechnology products, including medicines, kits, and medical tools, are produced in Iran, Ahmadi added. 

Tags

• Iran
 
• radiopharmaceuticals 
 
• Food and Drug Administration

A unified regional front in the face of US threats

The support voiced for Iran can be better understood through the idea of collective deterrence. This form is built on a network of actors spread across different territories, each with distinct capabilities.

In recent weeks, a number of American officials have issued a variety of threats against Iran, using different tones and methods. These threats have not only drawn firm responses from officials of the Islamic Republic, but have also triggered a wider regional reaction. Across West Asia, a noticeable wave of support for Iran has taken shape. Prominent figures and groups — including Sheikh Naim Qassem, Secretary-General of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim of Bahrain, and Iraq’s Kata'ib Hezbollah — have publicly expressed their backing for Iran and for the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in the face of any potential aggression. Taken together, these positions point to the strengthening of a deep strategic bond between Iran and its surrounding regional environment.

Within this broader landscape, Iran is no longer seen merely as a political ally or financial supporter. It has come to function as a central pillar in an informal regional security order, one in which a threat to Iran is understood as a threat to the entire structure. This order did not appear overnight. It developed gradually over decades, largely in reaction to US military interventions and to what regional actors view as the destabilizing policies of Israel. Over time, this loose alignment has matured and developed a clearer sense of its own interests and identity. As a result, any hostile move against Iran now carries consequences that extend well beyond its borders, raising both the scale of possible responses and the potential costs of escalation.

The support voiced for Iran can be better understood through the idea of collective deterrence. Unlike traditional deterrence models that revolve around a single center of power, this form is built on a network of actors spread across different territories, each with distinct capabilities. That network creates a kind of dispersed strategic depth. For Washington, this makes military and political calculations far more complicated than in the past, because any confrontation with Iran could quickly spill across multiple arenas rather than remain confined to one predictable front.

There is also an important non-military dimension. Statements by religious and social figures in the region bring an identity-based layer into the picture. When a threat to Iran is framed as a threat to a religious authority or to a symbol of political independence, the issue moves beyond a conventional dispute between states. It becomes tied to collective identity and historical memory. In that context, the costs of military action are not only strategic but also political, social, and moral, as reactions may come from broad segments of society, not just governments or armed organizations.

A crucial point often overlooked in Washington is that this regional convergence is not simply the result of orders from Tehran or imposed alignment. It stems from shared experiences — wars, sanctions, economic pressure, and repeated fears of regime-change efforts. Many in the region have drawn the conclusion that weakening Iran would not produce stability, but instead open the door to wider disorder. That is why even symbolic expressions of support carry serious strategic meaning.

All of this suggests that Iran today is viewed not just as an individual state actor, but as a central component of a broader regional balance. The more explicit the threats become, the more visible the cohesion around it appears. That dynamic may prove to be the key factor shaping any future confrontation or engagement involving Iran.

Iran’s protests and the dirty numbers game: The manufactured 'death toll'

The US-funded ecosystem of Iranian 'rights groups,' Israeli operatives, and monarchist activists has become a revolving door of unverifiable statistics and atrocity propaganda.

Robert Inlakesh

The Cradle 

Since the Islamic Republic of Iran imposed a nationwide internet blackout to crack down on what it branded as foreign intelligence-backed riots and a terrorist insurgency, unverifiable death tolls and casualty figures have spread rapidly.

These claims – none of which provide any credible evidence – continue to circulate in a coordinated fashion, amplified by Iranian opposition media and the mainstream western press alike.

Amid the wave of western coverage on Iranian protests, a Toronto-based NGO issued an outrageous claim that Iran had killed 43,000 protesters and wounded another 350,000. The group behind the figure, the International Center for Human Rights (ICHR), offered no footage, no forensic data, and no independently verifiable proof. Yet this statistic – dropped in a flimsy 900-word blog post – was catapulted into public discourse by British-Iranian comedian and opposition supporter, Omid Djalili, who pinned it to the top of his X profile.

As intended, the claim went viral. So did similar or even more extreme death tolls. They were echoed across social media by monarchist influencers, recycled by opposition outlets like Iran International, and eventually laundered into western corporate media coverage. The figures varied wildly – from 5,848 to 80,000 dead – and lacked even the pretense of substantiation. But they all served a clear political purpose: to build a case for regime change in the Islamic Republic.

The CIA fronts posing as human rights groups

The lowest estimate of Iran protest deaths – 5,848 people – came from the US-based group, Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI), which admits it is still “investigating” 17,000 additional cases. HRAI is no independent arbiter. It was partnered in 2021 with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US soft-power tool established under former US president Ronald Reagan to continue the CIA's work under NGO cover.

Another frequent source for Iran's death tolls is the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, which is also funded by NED. One of its board members is Francis Fukuyama, a signatory to the infamous neoconservative blueprint for the “War on Terror,” the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

Then there is United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), which claimed 12,000 Iranians were killed in the latest protests. This lobbying outfit, which successfully pressured the World Economic Forum (WEF) to disinvite Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, counts among its ranks former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, current US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and Dennis Ross of the Israel Lobby's think-tank WINEP.

These entities feed a revolving door of narratives, all designed to delegitimize the Islamic Republic, decontextualize internal unrest, and greenlight foreign meddling.

Israel-backed outrage machines and war agitators

The ICHR – the group behind the 43,000 deaths claim – is based in Canada and almost solely focused on Iran. It openly celebrates Israeli assassinations of resistance leaders like the late Hezbollah secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, and praises the “growing friendship” between Israel and the Iranian opposition. Its executive director, Ardeshir Zarezadeh, has published photos of himself posing with Israeli and monarchist flags while toasting with wine.

The organization also employs extremely politically biased language, like labeling the Iranian government “the criminal regime occupying Iran” in official press releases.

Despite the bombast, the ICHR's report offers no evidence. It relies on unverifiable “comparative investigative analysis” and anonymous sources, and falsely claims that 95 percent of killings occurred over just two days. There is no footage of anything approaching the numbers it alleges.

Meanwhile, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC), another US State Department-funded outfit, once promoted a bizarre claim that a protester faked his death and hid in a body bag for three days. Even the IHRDC admitted it could not verify the story – but opposition outlet Iran International broadcast it anyway, while omitting that it was fiction.

Far-right activists in the west, like Tommy Robinson, and monarchist influencers have pushed even more outlandish stories, including the allegation that Iran's security forces suffocate protesters by zipping them alive into body bags. No evidence required. Just one anonymous voice note.

The IHRDC has also been consulted by the US government to guide its sanctions policy, including the creation of a blacklist targeting Iranian individuals. Its executive director, Shahin Milani, recently posted on X that US President Donald Trump’s overtures to Iranian protesters, if “not backed up by overwhelming American support to cripple the regime’s armed forces,” would “constitute the greatest betrayal of Iranians by the West.”

This is part of a broader US strategy whereby Washington has poured funding into dozens of NGOs focused solely on Iran, from women’s rights outfits to ethnic minority advocacy groups, all tasked with feeding the narrative architecture of regime change.

Manufacturing atrocity, laundering lies

The propaganda pipeline runs from online influencers to western media. Take online activist Sana Ebrahimi, who claimed 80,000 protesters had been killed, citing only a friend “in contact with sources inside the government.” Her post garnered over 370,000 views.

Soon after, British radio station LBC News quoted an “Iranian human rights activist” named Paul Smith, who upped the death toll to 45,000–80,000. Smith, it turns out, is a regime change agitator on social media who endorses US military intervention in Iran.

In October 2025, the Israeli daily Haaretz exposed how Tel Aviv funds Farsi-speaking bot farms to promote Reza Pahlavi – the exiled son of Iran’s former monarch – and spread anti-government propaganda. These same bots helped inflate Iran protest narratives back in 2022. It is a digital war campaign masked as grassroots outrage.

Time Magazine claimed 30,000 Iranians had been killed, citing two anonymous Health Ministry officials. Iran International topped that, citing its own unverifiable sources to allege over 36,000 deaths.

Only Amnesty International, despite its hostile posture toward Tehran, refrained from a specific number, saying only that “thousands” had died. That estimate roughly aligns with Tehran's own figures: Iran's Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs reports 3,117 deaths, including 2,427 civilians and security personnel.

When lies become ‘casus belli’

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make of the Iranian state. But what we are seeing now is a coordinated misinformation offensive driven by Washington‑backed networks, Tel Aviv’s propaganda arms, monarchists and other oppositionists in exile, and compliant corporate press. 

The grotesque death tolls and phantom atrocity stories being circulated follow a familiar imperial playbook: the bogus incubator babies in Kuwait in 1990, the forged WMD claims in Iraq in 2003, the invented Libyan “genocide” in 2011, and the endless chemical weapons fabrications in Syria. Each time, the purpose was the same: to build a ‘casus belli.’

The people who died in Iran’s protests have become props in another foreign-backed narrative war, laying the groundwork for selective intervention disguised as humanitarian concern.

Greenland and the West’s selective morality: An Iranian perspective

 By Sasan Karimi

TEHRAN - European leaders have long portrayed themselves as guardians of the international legal order - principled actors committed to sovereignty, multilateralism, and restraint. In contrast to what they often describe as American impulsiveness, Europe’s self-image is rooted in moral seriousness and a respect for rules. However, as tensions escalate between Washington and European capitals over Greenland, that narrative is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

The Greenland debate has exposed something deeper than a transatlantic disagreement over an Arctic territory. It has revealed a widening gap between Europe’s rhetoric and its recent conduct elsewhere in the world - a gap that undermines its credibility far beyond the Arctic.

At issue is not whether Greenland’s territorial status should be respected. Under international law, the principle of territorial integrity remains fundamental, and few would seriously argue otherwise. The real question is why European governments have suddenly adopted an uncompromising legal tone in this case, while abandoning the same standards in conflicts and crises that matter just as much - if not more - to global stability.

In the Middle East, European behavior has been strikingly inconsistent. During the most recent escalation - a short but consequential conflict - European governments refrained from condemning acts widely regarded outside the West as aggression. Some went further, providing defensive assistance to Israel while simultaneously amplifying political pressure on Iran. The revival of the “snapback” mechanism under the nuclear deal, coupled with Europe’s failure to actively defend the agreement it once championed, sent a clear message: alignment with Washington took precedence over legal commitments and diplomatic balance.

Even symbolic actions reflected this shift. The quiet withdrawal of invitations to Iranian officials from major international forums, including the World Economic Forum in Davos, illustrated how quickly Europe abandoned the posture of neutral engagement it once claimed to uphold. For many observers, these moves confirmed what had already become apparent: Europe was no longer acting as an independent pole, but as a secondary actor operating within American strategic boundaries. It is against this backdrop that Europe’s reaction to Greenland appears so jarring.

When American political figures, including President Donald Trump, openly discussed expanding U.S. influence over Greenland, European leaders rushed to frame the issue as a blatant violation of sovereignty and international norms. The language was absolute, legalistic, and moralizing. Yet for audiences outside the transatlantic alliance, the sudden firmness rang hollow.

The problem is not that Europe is wrong to defend legal principles. The problem is that it defends them selectively.

International law, if it is to retain legitimacy, cannot function as a menu from which powerful actors choose what suits them. When principles are enforced in some regions but ignored in others, they lose their normative force and become tools of convenience. That is precisely the perception now taking hold in much of the Global South - and increasingly in parts of the Middle East and Asia.

The Greenland controversy also highlights an uncomfortable geopolitical reality that European leaders rarely acknowledge publicly. Greenland’s strategic, military, and economic integration with the United States is deep and longstanding. American security guarantees, infrastructure investments, and defense presence have shaped the island’s modern strategic identity for decades. This does not justify territorial revisionism, but it does complicate simplistic legal narratives that ignore power realities altogether.

Western governments routinely invoke such realities when they serve their interests. Security needs, historical ties, and regional stability are frequently cited to rationalize interventions, sanctions, and political pressure elsewhere. To deny that similar factors are at play in the Arctic - while insisting on a rigid legal interpretation - only reinforces perceptions of double standards.

Ironically, this moment has exposed a contrast between style and substance in Western politics. Figures like Donald Trump, often criticized for their disregard for diplomatic norms, have at times articulated geopolitical realities more bluntly than European leaders who continue to cloak strategic calculations in legal language. While Trump’s rhetoric is frequently crude and destabilizing, it is also refreshingly candid in its acknowledgment that power, not principle alone, shapes global outcomes.

Europe’s discomfort with that candor reflects a deeper strategic anxiety. Greenland has become a symbol of Europe’s dependence on American security and its limited ability to shape outcomes independently. By framing the issue as a legal dispute rather than a strategic one, European leaders avoid confronting that imbalance - but they do so at the cost of credibility.

For countries outside the Western alliance system, this moment presents an opportunity - not to endorse American claims or undermine sovereignty, but to challenge the moral hierarchy that Europe has long assumed. By highlighting inconsistencies in how international law is invoked, these states can force a more honest conversation about how the global order actually functions.

This does not require abandoning legal principles. On the contrary, it requires defending them consistently. When Europe condemns territorial pressure in the Arctic while remaining silent on violations elsewhere, it weakens the very norms it claims to protect. When it punishes some states while shielding others, it transforms law into leverage.

The consequences extend beyond Europe’s reputation. A rules-based order cannot survive on selective enforcement. As more states lose faith in the impartiality of international norms, they will increasingly rely on power, alliances, and deterrence rather than law. That trajectory benefits no one - including Europe itself.

If European leaders wish to restore their standing as normative actors, they must move beyond moral posturing and confront their own contradictions. Upholding international law means applying it even when it is politically inconvenient - whether in Greenland, the Middle East, or elsewhere.

Until that happens, the Greenland debate will remain more than a territorial dispute. It will stand as a mirror reflecting the West’s deeper credibility crisis - one rooted not in the erosion of sovereignty, but in the erosion of consistency.

Sasan Karimi is the assistant professor of world studies at the University of Tehran and vice president of global affairs at PAIAB institute

Tags

• Iran
 
• U.S.
 
• Denmark's Greenland
 
• Western Hemisphere