By Jonathan Michael Feldman, June 15, 2025

Introduction 

The escalating tensions between Israel and Iran have generated polarized narratives that often obscure rather than illuminate the complex realities at stake. While legitimate criticism of Israeli policies—particularly regarding Gaza—remains essential, some commentators have responded by promoting misleading claims that effectively whitewash Iran’s authoritarian regime. This analysis examines three prevalent misconceptions and argues for a more nuanced approach that can simultaneously critique Israeli actions while maintaining factual accuracy about Iran’s nuclear program and human rights record.

This essay does not defend Israel’s far-right leadership or its Gaza campaign, which former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself has characterized as potentially part of “a broader campaign of mass expulsion.”[1] Rather, it argues that opposition to one state’s problematic policies need not require the acceptance of false narratives about another.

Iran’s Nuclear Program: Current Status and Trajectory The Claim 

Some analysts have argued that Iran poses no imminent nuclear threat and was not actively pursuing weapons development. Harrison Mann’s recent analysis in Zeteo exemplifies this position, citing Iranian denials and noting that “Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suspended Iran’s nuclear program in 2003.”[2]

The Evidence 

Recent assessments from international monitoring bodies paint a different picture.[3] On June 13, 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board—representing 35 nations—declared Iran in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The agency’s technical report documented Iran’s “rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium” and failure to provide “technically credible answers regarding nuclear material at three locations.”

According to the IAEA’s latest quarterly report, Iran has amassed enough uranium enriched to 60% purity to potentially produce nine nuclear weapons—described as “a matter of serious concern” given the proliferation risks. The BBC’s analysis notes that 60% enrichment represents “a short, technical step away from weapons grade, or 90%.” Iran has also announced plans to establish new uranium enrichment facilities with advanced centrifuge technology.

While this does not constitute proof of an active weapons program, it demonstrates a clear trajectory toward weapons capability that international monitors find alarming.

Iranian Opposition Perspectives: Complexity Beyond Anecdotes 

The Claim 

Some suggest that Iranian opposition figures uniformly oppose Israeli military action against Iran, viewing it as counterproductive to their cause.[4]

The Reality 

Iranian opposition perspectives appear more divided than simple anecdotes suggest.[5] While some opponents of the regime may indeed oppose Israeli strikes, others reportedly collaborate with Israeli intelligence services. The relative ease with which Israel apparently recruits agents within Iranian government and military structures suggests significant internal dissent.

This complexity should caution against making sweeping generalizations about what Iranian dissidents want or need. Different opposition voices may reasonably reach different conclusions about external intervention’s potential impact on their struggle for democratic change.

Human Rights and State Accountability The Challenge of Selective Accountability 

Critics rightfully condemn Israeli policies that violate international law and human rights. However, some extend this legitimate criticism into a broader narrative that minimizes or ignores Iran’s extensive human rights violations.

Iran’s Human Rights Record 

Multiple international organizations have documented Iran’s systematic human rights abuses. The 2024 Human Rights Watch report describes how “Iranian authorities brutally cracked down on the ‘woman, life, freedom’ protests,” killing hundreds and arresting thousands. The report details ongoing persecution of activists, ethnic and religious minorities, and women who defy compulsory veiling laws.

Amnesty International’s 2024 Iran report documents “systematic discrimination and violence” against women, LGBTI individuals, and minorities, along with “widespread and systematic” torture, enforced disappearances, and arbitrary use of the death penalty.

These documented abuses occurred independently of the Israeli-Iranian conflict and represent longstanding patterns of repression that predate recent escalations.[6]

Legal and Political Implications 

While Iran faces diplomatic pressure over its nuclear program and human rights record, questions remain about accountability for its support of armed groups. Legal analysts have explored potential avenues for holding Iran responsible for supporting Hamas, though no definitive international legal judgment has been rendered.[7]

This highlights a broader challenge in international law: the difficulty of holding states accountable for supporting non-state actors while maintaining consistent standards across different conflicts and regions.

False Binaries and the Psychology of Contrarian Solidarity 

What unites these misconceptions isn’t just political ideology—it’s a psychological reflex. Many well-meaning critics of Western and Israeli power unconsciously fall into a cognitive trap known as binary thinking: the belief that if one side is bad, the other must be good. This type of reactive contrarianism often masquerades as principled dissent, but in practice, it flattens complex conflicts into a moral cartoon.

In psychology, this behavior resembles moral substitution: the process by which individuals redirect moral outrage at one power (e.g., the U.S. or Israel) by rationalizing or downplaying the abuses of its adversaries. If Israel bombs Gaza, Iran must be resisting imperialism. If the U.S. supports regime change, then the regime it opposes must be legitimate. It’s not logic—it’s grievance-based affiliation.

This isn’t critical thinking; it’s emotional bookkeeping.

This dynamic fosters a kind of solidarity cosplay, where critics adopt the rhetoric of resistance while ignoring or erasing the voices of actual Iranian dissidents. The oppressed are used as symbols rather than listened to as people. In this schema, the Islamic Republic becomes a stand-in for “anti-imperialism” itself—its actions judged not on their merits, but on whom they oppose.

This tendency is especially visible in online discourse, where expressions of outrage often replace engagement with evidence. If Israel commits atrocities, it becomes psychologically uncomfortable for some to also acknowledge Iran’s crimes—it feels like betrayal. But truth doesn’t exist to comfort us.

Toward Nuanced Analysis 

Effective criticism of problematic state policies requires several elements:

• Factual accuracy: Claims about nuclear programs, human rights records, and political dynamics must be based on verifiable evidence rather than wishful thinking or political convenience.
• Consistency: Human rights principles and international law should be applied consistently rather than selectively based on geopolitical preferences.
• Recognition of complexity: Opposition movements, state motivations, and regional dynamics are rarely reducible to simple narratives.
• Multiple perspectives: Acknowledging that people affected by conflicts may reasonably reach different conclusions about solutions and strategies.

Conclusion 

The Israeli-Iranian conflict involves serious violations of international law and human rights by multiple actors. Addressing these violations effectively requires moving beyond binary frameworks that treat criticism of one state as requiring defense of another.

Both Israeli policies in Gaza and Iranian domestic repression deserve condemnation based on human rights principles rather than geopolitical calculations. The Iranian people’s struggle for freedom and dignity, like the Palestinian people’s right to life and self-determination, deserves support based on universal principles rather than strategic considerations.

Only by maintaining factual accuracy and analytical consistency can we hope to contribute meaningfully to discussions about justice, accountability, and peace in this complex and tragic conflict.

References/Links

[1] Ezra Klein in a recent interview with  Ehud Olmert, Israel’s former Prime Minister, said:“It sounds to me like the intention here is part of a broader campaign of mass expulsion, to make Gaza so hellish and unlivable that at some point, the Gazans somehow, to somewhere, leave.” Olmert responded that: “Most likely, this is what they want. I’ve said that the strategy of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich is not just fighting Hamas in order to try and eradicate the military power as a result of what they accomplished, which was terrible. This is far broader. After 20 months of fighting, after eliminating almost all of their leadership — Yahya Sinwar, Muhammad Deif, Muhammad Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh — and all the commanders — high-level and medium-level and low-level commanders — all were eliminated. The launchers were destroyed. The rockets were destroyed. The command positions were destroyed. So to say that Gaza now poses a security for the existence of the state of Israel is nonsense. The only possible interpretation is the one you offer: They want to get rid of all the Gazans, and this is only part of the strategy.”  

[2] The claim was manifested in an article by Harrison Mann published by Zeteo, “Seven Lies about Israel’s Attack on Iran,” who represents a certain kind of self-serving analysis.  Mann wrote: “Before, during, and after the first wave of Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military and nuclear leadership, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was about to produce nuclear bombs – which he’s been warning since the 90s. Setting aside the Iranian government’s own denial that it was pursuing nuclear weapons – Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suspended Iran’s nuclear program in 2003 – both the International Atomic Energy Association and Trump’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have affirmed earlier this year that Iran was not trying to build a nuclear weapon.”

[3] Brett Stephens in The New York Times writes on June 13, 2025: “Barely a day before the strike, the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, representing 35 nations, declared that Iran was in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The agency’s technical report points to “rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium,” a failure by Iran to provide “technically credible answers regarding the nuclear material at three locations” and Iran’s “insistence on a unique and unilateral approach to its legally binding obligation.” The same day Thomas L. Friedman wrote in The New York Times that Iran had vastly accelerate  “its enrichment of uranium to near weapons grade. It had begun aggressively disguising those efforts to such a new degree that even the International Atomic Energy Agency declared on Thursday that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, the first time the agency has declared that in 20 years.”

David Gritten in his article, “Was Iran months away from producing a nuclear bomb?,” for the BBC, June 14, 2025, explains: “Last week, the IAEA said in its latest quarterly report that Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched up to 60% purity – a short, technical step away from weapons grade, or 90% – to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. That was ‘a matter of serious concern,’ given the proliferation risks, it added. The agency also said it could not provide assurance that the Iranian nuclear programme was exclusively peaceful because Iran was not complying with its investigation into man-made uranium particles discovered by inspectors at three undeclared nuclear sites.”  The article offers countervailing evidence about Iran not developing an actual weapon, but the fact remains that the country was on the path of building a weapon.  Iran also recently said it would set “up a new uranium enrichment facility at a ‘secure location’ and by replacing first-generation centrifuges used to enrich uranium with more advanced, sixth-generation machines at the Fordo enrichment plant.”

[4] This claim or implication was associated with a story told by a researcher in Gothenburg University in Sweden.  The anecdote notes an opponent of the Iranian regime who “hates” it wishing Israel to be defeated in this campaign.  Even if the story is true, it begs the larger question.  Another observer suggests a divided opposition.

[5] Back to Friedman, in the essay linked earlier, he writes: “But if you want to know their real secret, watch the streaming series ‘Tehran’ on Apple TV+. It fictionalizes the work of an Israeli Mossad agent in Tehran. What you learn from that series, which is also true in real life, is how many Iranian officials are ready to work for Israel because of how much they hate their own government. This clearly makes it relatively easy for Israel to recruit agents in the Iranian government and military at the highest levels.”

[6] Golriz Ghahraman wrote an essay published in The Guardian on November 10, 2022 about Iran as a “murderous regime” where she pleaded: “What we need is to freeze Iranian assets and bank accounts. Outlaw their funding mechanisms, designate them as terrorists known to be responsible for atrocities against our people. That must include the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard, who have tortured and killed with impunity for 43 years. We want the ambassador, that symbol of tyranny, expelled from his comfortable post in our adopted homeland. These are now some of the swiftly adopted, historically strong actions of many Western nations. This must in part be seen as a reflection of the diaspora movement.”

The 2024 Human Rights Watch report on Iran begins: “Iranian authorities brutally cracked down on the “woman, life, freedom” protests sparked after the September 2022 death in morality police custody of Mahsa Jina Amini, an Iranian-Kurdish woman, killing hundreds and arresting thousands of protestors. Scores of activists, including human rights defenders, members of ethnic and religious minorities, and dissidents, remain in prison on vague national security charges or are serving sentences after grossly unfair trials. Security forces’ impunity is rampant, with no government investigations into their use of excessive and lethal force, torture, sexual assault, and other serious abuses. Authorities have expanded their efforts in enforcing abusive compulsory hijablaws. Security agencies have also targeted family members of those killed during the protests. President Ebrahim Raeesi is accused of overseeing the mass extrajudicial executions of political prisoners in 1988.” Here is a report by Amnesty International on Iran in 2024: “Authorities further suppressed the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. Women and girls, LGBTI people, and ethnic and religious minorities experienced systemic discrimination and violence. Authorities intensified their crackdown on women who defied compulsory veiling laws, the Baha’i community, and Afghan refugees and migrants. Thousands were arbitrarily detained, interrogated, harassed and/or unjustly prosecuted for exercising their human rights. Trials remained systematically unfair. Enforced disappearances and torture and other ill-treatment were widespread and systematic. Cruel and inhuman punishments, including flogging and amputation, were implemented. The death penalty was used arbitrarily, disproportionately affecting ethnic minorities and migrants. Systemic impunity prevailed for past and ongoing crimes against humanity relating to prison massacres in 1988 and other crimes under international law.”

[7] A Crowell 2023 legal analysis on Iran’s culpability read: “U.S. law offers possible avenues to hold Iran to account for its material support to Hamas that resulted in the murders, injuries, hostage-taking, and permanent emotional scars suffered by thousands of innocent victims and their family members.  The available actions will depend on the facts, including facts not yet fully uncovered, regarding the planning of the attacks and the participation of other entities.  Based on current reporting, one of the most viable paths may be a lawsuit in a U.S. court against Iran for its support of Hamas, pursuant to the Terrorism Exception of the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1605A.  If successful, such a lawsuit could result in a judicial finding of liability against Iran, and also could allow some victims and family members to receive a measure of compensation for their devastating injuries.”