What Iran says to the world contradicts what it does to it!

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

In his speech to the United Nations, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian presented his country as a victim of American policies and accused Washington's leadership of bullying. However, this narrative leaves fundamental questions unanswered, related to the regime’s practices inside Iran, its role in the region’s conflicts, and its nuclear program. Objection to American and Israeli military operations does not absolve Tehran of the responsibility of clarifying its record, nor does it leave everything that preceded the war outside of discussion and accountability.

The problem with Pezeshkian's speech is not his demand to protect his country, but rather his ignoring the responsibility of its leadership for the crises it contributed to creating. There was no mention of the victims of the armed groups supported by Iran, and of the detainees and demonstrators who were subjected to repression. The letter also made no commitment to review these policies or address nuclear concerns. Thus, talking about oppression seemed to be an alternative to answering the accusations, not an entry point to address them.

The Strait of Hormuz stands out as a direct test of any Iranian desire for calm. Reopening it and ensuring safe navigation will reduce the damage to countries in the region and the global economy. The attacks that targeted infrastructure, airports, and civilian areas in neighboring countries also need explanation and accountability. If Tehran considers the United States and Israel its enemies, then expanding the scope of targeting places other countries and their populations at risk of a war they did not choose.

At home, the protests of 2022 are still a witness to the gap between the discourse of defending rights and the exercise of power. The death of Mahsa Amini, after she was arrested by the morality police because of the way she wore the hijab, sparked a wave of protests that raised the slogan “Women, Life, Freedom.” The security response was to arrest thousands of people and kill hundreds of protesters, according to what was reported in newspapers at the time, with the participation of the Basij forces, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, in the repression.

These facts make talking about the victim more complex than the official discourse presents. The Iranians who demanded their freedom were not a foreign power, and they did not come out to defend Washington's interests. They were demanding rights related to their lives, dignity and future. Hence, invoking the external threat does not answer the question of internal repression, does not justify silencing the objection, or turns citizens’ demands into an issue that can be postponed whenever the regional conflict intensifies.

As for the nuclear file, concerns focus on the high levels of uranium enrichment and the restrictions imposed on international oversight. There are accusations that the purity is close to that used in nuclear weapons, and that IAEA inspectors are denied access to suspicious sites. Declaring the program's peacefulness is not enough to resolve these concerns. Transparency and cooperation with inspectors is the practical way to dispel it and allow an independent assessment of the nature of activities.

The dispute with Tehran extends beyond its nuclear program to the network of armed groups linked to it. The Revolutionary Guard is accused of financing, arming and training the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and militias in Iraq and Syria. These relationships give Iran influence beyond its borders, but they also link its policies to conflicts whose costs are borne by local communities. Therefore, changing behavior requires reviewing military support, not just modifying rhetoric.

One of the Arab ambassadors believes that Iran has an opportunity to seek to be removed from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism, if it stops supporting these groups and changes their practices. But Bezeshkian's speech did not include, according to this assessment, preparation for such a review. Here the distance becomes clear between the demand to change the world's position on Iran, and the willingness to change the policies that contributed to shaping that position, and weakening confidence in the intentions of the Iranian leadership.

On the other hand, the Iranian narrative found support from Russia and China, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov criticized the American and Israeli operations and confirmed the rapprochement with Tehran. There are reports that Moscow is providing Iran with satellite images and tracking data for American forces, aircraft, and ships, as well as munitions, explosives, drone components, and portable air defense systems. If these reports are correct, the support goes beyond diplomatic positions to military support.

As for China, its Vice President Han Zheng criticized the unilateral US military operations. The Wall Street Journal published reports about Chinese entities providing space information and thousands of dual-use components to Iran. According to reports, these images may help improve the guidance of missiles and drones, and monitor commercial ships and military escorts in Hormuz. However, the role of the Chinese authorities in issuing or permitting these activities remains unclear.

The accusations include more than 1,000 air shipments to the Iranian Ministry of Defense during the first half of 2026, and include GPS devices, electric motors, aircraft engine parts, and materials used in missile fuel. There are also reports of plans to supply about 400 portable air defense missile launchers, and to help companies and banks bypass oil export restrictions and move billions of dollars through barter and credit arrangements.

Holding Tehran accountable does not mean ignoring the responsibilities of other parties or granting a state the right to target civilians. The standard should be the same for all: protecting people, respecting the sovereignty of states, and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. On this basis, the credibility of any call for peace can be judged by the actions that follow it, and the extent to which those who make it are willing to accept oversight, accountability, and change the policies that fuel the conflict.

These allegations add an international dimension to the crisis. There are American and European accusations of violating Resolution 2231, and criticism of obstructing UN oversight by using Russian and Chinese “vetoes.” However, evaluating these allegations requires verifying the facts and the relevant legal framework, while distinguishing between the political position and proven information. The essence of the issue remains that civilians, inside and outside Iran, are the ones paying the price. Protecting them requires stopping repression and attacks, reviewing support for armed groups, and transparent nuclear cooperation, not just describing the state as a victim.

Quoted from "Al-Sharq Al-Awsat"