We waited. The silence my first article The Silence After the Lie diagnosed did not stay silent. It filled with the Counter-Islam industry doing what it was built to do — accusation, suspicion, and the steady transfer of a manufactured fear poisoning the public bloodstream. It filled with the propaganda outlets and pundits who make their careers from exactly this. It did not fill with clear corrections from the government officials, the Met, the BBC, or the mainstream outlets that ran the original framing.

Nearly two months in, the Metropolitan Police have arrested twenty-six people. Eight have been charged with arson-related offences. One has been convicted of arson. One man was arrested on 26 April on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts — the first terrorism-related arrest in the entire investigation.¹ The investigation that began under the lens of an Iranian-directed Islamic terror campaign has now been reframed by the Met itself as a paid-proxy criminal operation — “violence as a service,” in the words of the senior counter-terrorism coordinator.² But the Iran attribution has not been retracted. The framing has only shifted from Iranian-linked terrorism to Iranian-linked criminality — the same misinformation, the same dubious sources, the same pipeline, with the noun changed and the modifier preserved. The British government has not retracted the Iran link. The BBC has not retracted the framing — it has only softened it, now describing HAYI as a group with possible or suspected links to Iran rather than as a confirmed Iranian-backed group. The legislation Parliament wrote for foreign-state-directed hostile activity is not being used. The original framing has been left in place to do its work.

This article is about the evidence that has accumulated to date — not only in the three weeks since The Silence After the Lie was published, but from the moment HAYI first appeared on the ninth of March 2026. The first article established the pipeline through which the Iran-linked narrative was laundered and reached the British public: the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague, the BBC. That pipeline is established. This article is about the operational fingerprint of the people who built the HAYI brand. The technical impossibility of the Iranian-handler thesis. The Met’s quiet retreat from terrorism to criminality without any retreat from the Iran attribution itself. And the question the original article could not yet ask — not just who built this, but why, nearly two months in and twenty-six arrests later, no foreign sponsor has been named when the Met’s own most recent comparable case named one within months.³

Both communities are owed clarity. Jewish families in Golders Green were told they were under siege from Iranian-directed Islamic terror. They were not. Muslim families across Britain have been carrying the weight of an attack their communities had no part in and condemn without qualification. The Met, the British government, and the media that ran the original framing owe both communities the same correction, with the same prominence as the original story. They have not yet given it. The investigation was wrong from the beginning. The work of this article is to show what putting it right would actually require. Until it is put right, both communities cannot heal and the public cannot see the true problem.

Share

No Muslim Hands

HAYI claims to be a Shia Islamic militant group. That is the identity the brand asserts in its founding statement. The 9 March announcement, circulated through Iraqi pro-Iranian Telegram channels, declared the start of HAYI’s “military operations against US and Israeli interests around the world.” ⁴ The communiqués that followed framed the campaign as jihad — a sacred religious act in the framework of Islamic militancy — in retaliation for the US-Israeli war on Iran, conducted by a movement aligned with the Axis of Resistance. That is the identity the founding statement asserts. That is the identity the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs formalised in its 16 March report.⁵ That is the identity the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism amplified on 23 March.⁶ That is the identity the public received.

The evidence disqualifies that identity at every level the operation can be examined — language, theology, vocabulary, source material, soundtrack, and behaviour. None of it requires specialist analysis. Most of it is documented by the institutions whose own reports gave the original framing its credibility. The case is not that the framing was hard to verify. The case is that the framing was contradicted by the materials HAYI itself published, and the institutions that ran with it did not look.

Start with the strongest single point: the founding statement HAYI issued for the Golders Green attack — the document the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs republished on its own website — opens with a quotation from the Qur’an, Surah At-Tawbah verse 41. The text has been altered.⁷

The Quranic verse reads wa-jāhidū — “and strive” — the imperative form of the verb. HAYI’s version reads wa-jāhadū — past tense, “and they strove.” The vocalisation mark on the letter hāʼ has been moved from below the letter (kasra, short i) to above it (fatḥa, short a). One vowel. The vowel changes the tense, changes the grammatical function, and changes the meaning of the verse.

This is not a hard error to identify. The Arabic text of Surah 9:41 is available on Quran.com, in every printed Qur’an in the world, and in every Islamic-language corpus a translator might consult. Copy-paste produces the correct text. The error appears only when someone composes the line themselves — or asks an AI to compose it — without checking against the received text.

For Muslims, this matters in a way that cannot be overstated and is difficult to convey to a reader who does not share the formation. The Qur’an is considered divinely preserved — God’s words, transmitted through fourteen centuries with the precise vocalisation intact. Altering the text, even in a quotation, even by a single diacritical mark, is theologically unthinkable. It is taught from the moment a child first picks up a Qur’an. A Muslim militant group — any school, any sect, any tradition — does not alter Quranic text in the document that announces its existence. There is no internal religious framework in which the alteration would be permitted, and no operational framework in which it would be allowed to pass.

Whoever composed HAYI’s founding statement did not know this. The implication is binary: either the person had no Muslim religious formation at all, or the statement was generated by AI and published without anyone checking it against the Qur’an. Both possibilities preclude the identity HAYI asserts. A Shia Islamic militant group does not produce its founding statement with the Qur’an misquoted in Arabic on the first line.

And the misquotation is not on a hand-drawn logo or a low-resolution graphic where a letter might be miscopied. It is the body text of a written communiqué, reproduced as an image in the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs’ own report on the group. The Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs has been republishing the error. They do not note that it has been altered.

The vocabulary the operators chose for the rest of the statement points the same way.

The Golders Green communiqué describes the Machzike Hadath Synagogue as significant because of its connection to “Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel and one of the most influential thinkers of Religious Zionism, who served at this synagogue before immigrating to the Land of Israel.” ⁸ The phrase to mark is “the Land of Israel” — Eretz Yisrael. It is the formulation of Religious Zionism: the theological-political movement founded by Rabbi Kook that frames the modern state of Israel as the realisation of biblical promise. It is the vocabulary of Israeli nationalism and of the settler movement. It is not the vocabulary of any Iranian proxy. It is not the vocabulary of any Shia militant tradition. It is not the vocabulary of any Sunni jihadi movement. Real Islamist groups have a vocabulary for talking about Israel — the Zionist entity, the Occupation, the usurper entity, the Zionist regime. They use it because their ideological framework requires them to deny the legitimacy of the Israeli state in the act of naming it. The Land of Israel concedes the legitimacy in the act of naming. It is the formulation of the side that affirms the state, not the side that opposes it.

The same paragraph contains a second tell. The communiqué describes Machzike Hadath as “one of the important centers of Orthodox Judaism.” The construction is unremarkable to a Western reader who has grown up around Anglo-American Jewish denominational vocabulary — Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox, Hasidic, Haredi, the categories that organise diaspora Jewish religious life. To a Muslim militant, this construction is unwritable. The framework that motivates a real Islamist attack on a synagogue does not distinguish denominations. The framework is al-yahud — Jews — or Zionists. A Shia militant communiqué does not specify Orthodox versus Reform any more than anti-shariah propaganda would specify Sunni versus Shia when calling for violence against Muslims. Denomination is theologically irrelevant to the framework. Specifying it is the move of someone inside Jewish religious-political life, fluent in its internal categories — not someone hating Jews from outside it.

The two phrases together are the operators’ fluency, on display in the document that introduced HAYI to the world. “The Land of Israel” is Religious Zionist vocabulary. “Orthodox Judaism” is the language of someone who knows Jewish denominational categories. Neither is something a Muslim militant would write. Both are something a person fluent in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life would write without thinking. The operators wrote a Muslim extremist communiqué in the wrong vocabulary — vocabulary they evidently knew well enough to use without noticing.

The same paragraph contains a smaller tell that compounds the others. The Machzike Hadath Synagogue is described as “one of the important centers of Orthodox Judaism” — American spelling, not the British centres. The communiqué is announcing an attack on a London target. The American spelling does not, on its own, prove who is sitting at the keyboard. It proves the device the document was composed on. A uniformly American communiqué is not the output of an unconscious bilingual habit slip — that produces a mixed document, with British spellings appearing alongside the American ones. Neither is it the output of a writer working on a British-defaulted machine, whose American keystrokes would be corrected back. And the analysts who have examined HAYI’s materials agree that the Arabic text shows the signatures of machine translation, with the ICCT specifically identifying the second Telegram channel name as “likely resulting from an incorrect English translation.” ⁹ The English text is the input, not the output. Uniform American spelling in the English source requires American-defaulted hardware. The device default does not, on its own, disqualify any operator — Muslim militants working in or near American-defaulted contexts exist. What it does is add another small fact to the picture HAYI’s own materials have already built: a Quranic verse altered in a way no Muslim composes, vocabulary describing Israel and Jews that no Muslim militant uses, and a communiqué for a London target composed on an American-defaulted device. Each of these alone is small. Together they describe an operation built somewhere other than where HAYI says it was built.

The strongest direct test of HAYI’s claimed identity came on the day after the Golders Green attack. CBS News reached the administrator of HAYI’s surviving Telegram channel and exchanged a series of messages with him. The administrator, who referred to himself as Asad-Allah, did three things in the exchange that revealed more than any of HAYI’s published materials. He revealed his working language. He revealed the conceptual framework he reasoned from. And he revealed what he would not answer.¹⁰

The administrator wrote to CBS in American English. Not the English of an Arabic-speaker translating into a second language, with the syntactic markers that betray a non-native speaker. American English. The language of someone for whom American English is the default working language, written without strain and without translation artefacts. CBS noted this directly in their reporting.

The conceptual framework was sharper still. CBS observed that posts on the account had repeatedly referenced Christian and Jewish philosophy to justify the group’s actions, with no mention of Islamic principles or teachings. A Shia Islamic militant group does not justify its attacks through Christian and Jewish philosophy. A Shia Islamic militant group justifies its attacks through the Qur’an, the hadith, the example of the Imams, the Karbala framework, the Khomeinist tradition, the rulings of senior Shia jurists. These are not interchangeable with Christian and Jewish philosophy. They are not equivalent intellectual traditions one might substitute for the other depending on audience. A Shia operative defending an attack reasons from sources internal to the Shia tradition, because that is the framework that makes the attack intelligible to the audience the operative cares about. The administrator of HAYI’s Telegram channel did not. He reasoned from sources outside the tradition the group claims as its own.

The pattern surfaced again, on the record, seven weeks later. On 29 April 2026, HAYI claimed responsibility for a stabbing attack on two Jewish men in Golders Green, in a video circulated through the same Iraqi Shia militia Telegram channels that had carried the founding statement. The video runs forty-one seconds. It contains no attack footage and no imagery from the perpetrator — only static text overlays on the HAYI logo, in English on the left and Arabic on the right. The operative phrase reads: "Historically, the Jews are the killers of Jesus Christ, and today the Zionists are the killers of innocent women and children."⁴⁵ This is deicide — the Christian theological accusation that the Jews collectively killed Christ, formally repudiated by the Catholic Church in Nostra Aetate in 1965. It is not an Islamic doctrine. The Qur'an explicitly denies that Jesus was crucified at all. Surah An-Nisa 4:157 reads: "And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them." The classical Islamic position, held across Sunni and Shia traditions for fourteen hundred years, is that Jesus was raised by God and another was substituted on the cross. No Muslim militant group invoking jihad against Jews could coherently use the deicide accusation, because doing so requires the speaker to affirm a crucifixion their own scripture denies. The video then compounds the incoherence. It praises "the followers of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him)" — Christians — for "participating in the operation." A supposedly Shia Islamic militant group is praising Christians, invoking deicide against Jews, as theological warrant for jihad. That position does not exist inside any actual Islamic militant tradition. It retroactively claims an alleged American attempted-assassin of US President Trump, named in the video as Cole Thomas Allen, as one of HAYI's own — and calls on "all free people" to kill Trump as well. What CBS observed in the administrator's private messages on 24 March — reasoning from Christian and Jewish philosophy rather than Islamic sources — has now appeared in HAYI's own published claim communiqué on 29 April, expanded into a fully Christian-framed call to action. The operators are not improvising one-off rhetorical errors. They are operating from inside Christian and Jewish theological frameworks, reaching for the most familiar piece of historical anti-Jewish vocabulary they have, and the one they reach for is Christian, not Islamic.

When CBS asked about the group’s structure and whether anyone was being paid, the administrator deleted the account.

That deletion is the moment the cover failed under direct questioning. The other tells in this section are tells of composition — what the operators wrote, in which language, with which vocabulary. The deletion is a tell of behaviour. Asked the operational question that any real militant group could answer with practiced rhetoric — we are a network of believers, we accept no payment, our cause is justice — the administrator chose silence and disappearance over even a propaganda answer. A real Shia operative would have welcomed the question as an opportunity to declaim. The HAYI administrator walked away.

CBS quoted Lucas Webber, a senior threat intelligence analyst at Tech Against Terrorism, on the day of the attack: HAYI looks “less like a grassroots European cell that came out of nowhere and more like an astroturfed terror brand that has appeared suddenly in online ecosystems.” ¹¹ That phrase — astroturfed terror brand — is the technical term for what the operational fingerprint describes. The branding is real; the grass roots are manufactured. A Tech Against Terrorism analyst, on the day the pipeline was preparing to deliver the Iran-link framing to the public, told CBS what HAYI looked like to a specialist examining it. The framing the pipeline carried the next day did not absorb that finding.

The pipeline’s research-body stage — the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague — examined the same materials and produced findings the rest of the pipeline would carry forward. The ICCT report, published on the day of the Golders Green attack and titled Hybrid Threat Signals: Assessing Possible Iranian Involvement in Recent Attacks in Europe, contained the linguistic and visual analysis that mainstream outlets would cite the next day as institutional cover for the framing the IMDA’s earlier report had built. Read carefully, the ICCT’s own findings undermine the framing the report’s headline endorsed.

The ICCT’s central paragraph on HAYI’s authenticity, in the institute’s own words: “Doubts regarding the authenticity of HAYI are, however, not only raised by the appearance of its Telegram channel and the likely falsely claimed attack in Greece, but also by inconsistencies within the claim material itself. For example, the videos contain noticeable linguistic errors. Further, the Arabic inscription beneath the group’s logo, which closely resembles the flag of Hezbollah and other pro-Axis groups, except for featuring a Soviet SVD sniper rifle instead of the more typical AK-style imagery, includes multiple mistakes, including the misspelling of the word ‘Islamic.’” ¹²

Three findings in one passage, every one of them the ICCT’s own analysis.

The first: the videos contain noticeable linguistic errors. Plural. In the videos themselves — not just on a static logo. A supposedly Iranian-aligned Shia militant group whose own video output contains noticeable linguistic errors in the language it claims as its own.

The second: the logo is a near-clone of Hezbollah’s flag and the flags of other pro-Axis groups — except for one substitution. The AK-style rifle that appears in every actual pro-Iranian Shia militia’s iconography has been replaced with a Soviet Dragunov SVD. The Iranian-Iraqi-Lebanese militia ecosystem runs on Iranian-supplied or Iranian-copied AK-pattern rifles. The Kalashnikov silhouette is the universal symbol of every actual pro-Iranian Shia militia from Lebanon to Yemen.¹³ The Dragunov SVD is a Soviet-era designated-marksman rifle associated with Russian and Russian-aligned forces. For a supposedly Iranian-aligned proxy to brand itself with an SVD rather than an AK is the visual equivalent of an American militia branding itself with a British SA80 instead of an M16. It is the kind of detail that would never appear on real branding. It is the kind of detail you get when somebody reaches for generic menacing rifle rather than the appropriate symbol for the milieu being imitated.

The third: the Arabic inscription beneath the logo includes multiple misspellings, and the ICCT specifies one of them — the word Islamic. The error matters at the level of the vowel. As with the altered wa-jāhidū in the founding statement, the position of a single diacritical mark changes the word. The Arabic for Islamic — الإسلامية (Islamiyya)— requires a small symbol called a hamza placed beneath the initial alif: إ. The hamza signals the short vowel i — which is what makes the word read Islām. Move the hamza above the alif and the vowel becomes a, producing Aslām — not a word in Arabic. The position of the hamza is not decorative. It is taught in the first weeks of Arabic literacy and reproduced correctly by every Muslim child who learns to read the Qur'an. A supposedly Islamic militant group cannot spell Islamic in Arabic on its own logo. The institution whose research-body credibility the pipeline relied on for institutional cover, when it actually read the Arabic on HAYI's own branding, found multiple errors — including this one.

The ICCT’s report contains a fourth, separate finding on a piece of material the institute analysed in addition to the logo. The second HAYI Telegram channel — created on 21 March 2026, two days before the Golders Green attack, with a QR code in the claim video pointing directly to it — is also identified as inconsistent. The ICCT’s words: “there are also a number of inconsistencies with this account, foremost the misspelling of the Arabic channel name, likely resulting from an incorrect English translation.” ⁹

Read that carefully. A Telegram channel name is not a hand-drawn graphic where a letter might be miscopied. It is text typed into a box, with the option to correct it before publication. The ICCT’s specific characterisation — “likely resulting from an incorrect English translation” — is the institute identifying English as the source language for the channel name. Someone composed the name in English first and translated it into Arabic. The Arabic came out wrong. They published it anyway. A real Arabic-speaking group names itself in Arabic first and transliterates into English for foreign audiences. The direction documented here is the reverse — the signature of a non-native creator working from an English original.

These are real findings, and they are the findings of the institution whose research-body credibility the pipeline relied on for institutional cover. They are, in their own way, evidence that no Arabic speaker built HAYI’s brand. The altered Quranic verse in HAYI’s founding statement is not among them — the foundational error that requires Quranic literacy to identify is absent from the ICCT’s report.

But the more important analytical move the ICCT made is what it did with the inconsistencies it did identify. Julian Lanchès did not stop at the inconsistencies. He absorbed them into the Iranian-backed thesis. The misspelled Arabic, the SVD substitution, the dubiously authentic Telegram accounts, the falsely claimed attacks in Greece — all of it, in the ICCT’s reading, became evidence of a plausible-deniability layer on top of Iranian state backing. The argument runs: HAYI’s amateurism is too sloppy for Iranian intelligence operatives to have produced directly, but consistent with Iran outsourcing the operation to locally recruited disposable proxies on the Russian sabotage model. The inconsistencies, in this reading, are not evidence against Iranian involvement. They are evidence of Iranian involvement at one operational remove.

That move is the analytical decision the ICCT did not justify. The inconsistencies are consistent with Iranian backing via disposable proxies. They are also consistent with an operation that has nothing to do with Iran and is using Iranian-aligned distribution channels as cover. The same evidence supports both readings equally. The choice of which reading to fit the evidence to is the analytical move that determines the conclusion — and the ICCT’s reasoning for choosing the Iranian-backed reading rests on the dissemination through Iraqi militia channels, which is exactly the inference our analysis is contesting. Distribution is not origin. Channel administration can be genuine, persuaded, paid, infiltrated, or shared. The ICCT treated the dissemination network as evidence of origin, which allowed it to read the inconsistencies as plausible-deniability tactics rather than as evidence of fabrication. With a different starting assumption, the same inconsistencies become the fingerprint of an operation that is not what it claims to be.

The ICCT laundered the framing forward. Lanchès identified the inconsistencies and absorbed them into a thesis that the rest of the evidence — the altered Qur’an, the American English administrator, the Christian and Jewish philosophical reasoning, the no-Persian — does not support. He did not interrogate the upstream evidentiary base the IMDA had built. He did not test alternative readings. He published a report he knew or should have known would be picked up by mainstream outlets as institutional confirmation. The pickup happened the next day. The framing the public received rested on an analytical move the pipeline’s research-body stage made without justifying it, on a foundation the pipeline’s state-authoritative stage had built without disclosing what its evidence actually contained.

The institutional failure to identify HAYI’s source-language problem was not because the evidence was hidden. The evidence was published, by named specialists, in mainstream outlets, within days of the Golders Green attack. Two separate institutional sources, working independently, reached the same conclusion: HAYI’s materials were AI-generated.

The first was Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, examining HAYI’s multi-language communiqué for Middle East Eye. Al-Tamimi is one of the more credentialled subject-matter specialists on jihadist propaganda working in the open-source space. He holds a BA in Classics and Oriental Studies from Brasenose College, Oxford, and a PhD from Swansea University on the role of historical narratives in Islamic State propaganda — for which he received Swansea’s James Callaghan Thesis Prize for best doctoral thesis in 2024–25. He has been cited as expert by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, AFP, and the Associated Press. His professional affiliations include the Middle East Forum, the Hoover Institution, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and — relevantly — the ICCT itself.¹⁴ He is not a marginal figure. His finding on HAYI was published in mainstream English-language media on 24 March 2026.

Al-Tamimi’s reading of HAYI’s multi-language statement: “I think there was an initial AI prompt to give an answer in one of the three languages and then it was machine translated into the other two.” The same article reported that two separate AI-detection tools run by Middle East Eye gave the statement a “high likelihood of having been AI-generated.” ¹⁵

The second source was Adam Hadley, founder and CEO of Tech Against Terrorism, a UN-backed counter-extremism initiative. Hadley told The National that HAYI’s materials had been “generated using ChatGPT or similar,” describing HAYI as “probably the first AI-led terrorist movement.” ¹⁶ Two named institutional voices, working in different organisations, reaching the same conclusion. Both findings were on the public record before the pipeline’s framing reached its second day in the public mind.

A real Iranian-aligned Shia militant group does not produce its founding communiqué through ChatGPT. The IRGC has its own media apparatus. Hezbollah has its own media apparatus. Asaib Ahl al-Haq has its own media apparatus. These organisations have spent decades building production capability in Arabic, in Persian, in the visual and rhetorical idioms of their tradition.¹⁷ They do not need a machine-translation tool to write a claim of responsibility, and if they did, the document they produced would not be the document HAYI produced. The signatures the analysts identified — uneven multi-language output, machine-translation artefacts, ChatGPT-style phrasing — are signatures of an operation that had no in-house Arabic capability and substituted a commercial AI tool for the apparatus a real militant group spends years building.

That substitution is itself a finding. It tells you what the operators had and what they did not. They had access to AI tools, an English-fluent author, and the visual symbology of Iranian-aligned militancy at the level you can absorb from photographs. They did not have a native Arabic speaker, a Persian speaker, a Shia jurisprudential reasoner, or anyone with Muslim religious formation deep enough to catch a Quranic vowel. The gap between what the operators had and what a real Iranian-aligned Shia militant group has is the gap between an astroturfed terror brand and a real one — to use Lucas Webber’s phrase.

The way real institutional jihadist groups produce claims of responsibility is documented. Counter-terrorism analysts who track this material — the SITE Intelligence Group’s Rita Katz, The Long War Journal‘s Tom Joscelyn, others — have written extensively about how the architecture works.¹⁸ The Islamic State runs claim production through the Amaq News Agency, a semi-autonomous wire service inside the group’s Central Media Diwan. Provincial bureaus submit raw footage and event details. Central oversight enforces messaging protocols. The system was built over years of institutional investment. When the group is directly involved in an attack, the claim typically appears within twenty-four hours, includes specific details about the attacker, and is corroborated through the group’s verified-direct channel — for ISIS, the Nashir Media Foundation. When the group is not directly involved and is claiming opportunistically, the claim takes longer, lacks attacker details, and tends to appear only on the Amaq-equivalent broad-distribution layer.

The pattern is institutional. It rests on years of media-production capacity, dedicated personnel, established templates, encrypted distribution architecture, and chains of editorial review. Hezbollah operates al-Manar television and the Mayadeen network. Asaib Ahl al-Haq operates Sabereen News. The IRGC operates its own state media apparatus. These are not infrastructures that can be assembled in days. They are the products of decades of investment by movements with stable identities, recognised leadership, internal hierarchies, and institutional histories that the analyst community has been documenting for years.¹⁹

HAYI, on the public record, did not exist before 9 March 2026. There are no known references to the group online or offline before that date — the ICCT confirmed this in its own report. On 9 March, a Telegram channel affiliated with the Iraqi pro-Iranian militia Liwa Zulfiqar circulated a HAYI announcement of “the start of its military operations against US and Israeli interests around the world.” On 11 March, two days after the Liège attack, the first claim video appeared. By Rotterdam on 13 March, the production workflow had compressed to thirty-nine minutes from attack to branded video on Iraqi Telegram channels. For the Amsterdam Jewish school attack on 16 March, the ICCT’s own timestamps showed a Telegram mention apparently preceding the attack itself by one minute — almost certainly clock drift or time-zone formatting, but the institute flagged it as an anomaly. By the Golders Green attack on 23 March, two weeks after HAYI first appeared online, the brand was producing claim videos with embedded Google Maps street views, photographs of the targeted ambulances, and biographical research on Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook to justify the primary target selection.²⁰

The technical production of a one-to-two minute branded video is fast. A competent editor with a pre-built template can assemble one in under an hour from supplied footage. That is not the analytical question. The analytical question is whether the institutional architecture HAYI’s materials demonstrate — distribution channels with hundreds of thousands of pre-arranged followers in the pro-Iranian Iraqi Telegram ecosystem, branding templates ready to deploy, the cultural-fluency layer that produces Religious Zionist vocabulary and Anglo-American Jewish religious-political reasoning, the multi-language statement-assembly capacity, the persona of a Shia militant group — could have been built between 9 March, when HAYI first appeared online, and the production of the first claim videos. The answer is no. The dissemination network pre-existed HAYI; the ICCT documented that the first HAYI Telegram channel was registered in 2023, two years before activation. The branding was prepared before the campaign began, applied consistently to incoming footage from 11 March onward. The cultural fluencies the materials demonstrate are not built in days. What appeared in fourteen days was the activation of pre-existing infrastructure plus the application of pre-prepared branding to attack footage. Which means the architecture was built before HAYI publicly existed. The group is either the cover for an operation that already had the apparatus in place, or the brand layer on top of someone else’s.

The same gap shows up in the soundtrack of HAYI’s videos. Sharon Adarlo, a conflict analyst writing for Militant Wire and quoted by CBS on the day after the Golders Green attack, noted that HAYI’s videos used orchestral music rather than the Islamic nasheeds commonly used as soundtracks on jihadist propaganda.²¹ Nasheeds — vocal religious chants, traditionally performed without instruments, drawing on a musical tradition rooted in the recitation of Qur’anic and devotional Arabic — are the standard soundtrack convention of Sunni and Shia jihadist media production. ISIS produces nasheeds through its Ajnad Foundation. Hezbollah produces nasheeds through its media wing. Real Islamist propaganda uses them because they are the genre Islamist audiences expect, the genre that signals religious seriousness, and — for many Salafi-jihadi traditions specifically — the only musical form considered religiously permissible. Instrumental music is theologically contested in Islamist circles, with significant traditions holding it impermissible.

HAYI used orchestral music. Western orchestral music, with strings and horns and the sweeping cinematic feel of film scoring. A choice that signals nothing to a jihadi audience and everything to a Western one — the soundtrack convention of action films and political thrillers, not of Islamist religious media. The choice is small. It is also revealing. The operators reached for what menacing sounds like in their own cultural vocabulary — the language of Western cinema — rather than for what menacing sounds like in the tradition HAYI claims as its own. Once again, the operators were fluent in something they should not have been, and unfluent in something they should have been.

The point is not that Iran cannot produce Western-cultural propaganda. It can, and it does. Since the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran, Iran-based outlets — including Explosive Media, which has acknowledged to the BBC that the Iranian government is a customer — have produced an entire genre of AI-generated, LEGO-style animated videos using English-language hip-hop to mock Trump and reframe the war for Western audiences. Al Jazeera, MS NOW, and the BBC have documented the genre.²²

But these are different production tasks for different audiences. Iran’s LEGO videos are propaganda — outward-facing, made for Western non-Muslim audiences, aimed at winning narrative ground in the Western information space. The conventions of that task are hip-hop, LEGO animation, English-language lyrics, cultural reference points Westerners recognise. The form matches the function. HAYI’s videos are not making that kind of communication. HAYI’s videos claim to be internal Shia militant claims of responsibility for attacks framed as jihad — a sacred religious act, in the framework of Islamic militancy, declared to a Muslim audience inside the in-group conventions of the Axis of Resistance. That production task uses nasheeds. It uses Quranic recitation. It uses the visual idiom of Hezbollah and the IRGC. The conventions are solemn, religious, inward-facing — because the task is religious and inward-facing. Iran’s LEGO videos do not use nasheeds because LEGO videos for Western audiences are not religious communications. HAYI’s videos claim to be religious communications. They use orchestral music. The form does not match what HAYI claims to be.

There is one more language fact that closes the case for this section, and it is the language HAYI has not produced.

In nearly two months since HAYI announced itself, the group has issued statements and videos in English, Arabic, and Hebrew. It has not produced one word of Persian. CBS News reported the absence on the day after the Golders Green attack, and RFE/RL reported it again three weeks later. The Persian language has been entirely missing from HAYI’s output across the entire campaign.²³

This absence is not a small detail. Persian is the operational and ideological centre of gravity of the Iranian state and the network of proxies the pipeline’s framing places HAYI inside. The IRGC operates in Persian. Iranian state media operates in Persian. Khamenei’s communications are in Persian. The Iranian-language audiences that pro-Iranian militant groups care about read and listen in Persian. When Hezbollah wants to signal alignment with Iran, it produces Persian-language material alongside its Arabic. When Asaib Ahl al-Haq communicates with its Iranian sponsors, it does so in Persian. When the Houthis broadcast solidarity with Iran, Persian appears in the output. Real pro-Iranian militant groups produce Persian material as a matter of course. It is the language of the audience that matters to them.²⁴

A supposedly Iranian-linked Shia militant group that has never produced one word of Persian is not what it claims to be. The absence is structural. It is not the kind of gap a real Iranian proxy would have. It is, however, exactly the kind of gap an operation built by people whose source languages are English and Hebrew — and whose Arabic is produced by machine translation — would have. The languages HAYI does use are the three languages someone reading Western and Israeli media would default to. The language HAYI does not use is the one a real Iranian proxy could not afford to be without.

The synthesis is straightforward. The Qur’an in HAYI’s founding statement is altered. The vocabulary describes Israel and Jews in terms no Muslim militant uses. The English text was composed on American-defaulted hardware. The Telegram administrator wrote to CBS in American English, reasoned from Christian and Jewish philosophy, and deleted the account when asked who was paying. The ICCT found the logo Arabic misspelled, the iconography wrong, the second channel name machine-translated from English. Middle East Eye and Tech Against Terrorism found the materials AI-generated. The soundtrack does not match the production task HAYI claims to be performing. And the language a real Iranian proxy must produce is the one language HAYI has never produced.

There is a pattern in the operational fingerprint that has to be named. The errors HAYI’s materials contain are not the errors of a real organisation that has slipped on minor details. They are the errors of an operation built to be recognised as something it is not. The mistakes follow a consistent grammar — they are the mistakes of someone filling in a checklist of what Western analysts expect Iranian-aligned militancy to look like, without the deep knowledge of the tradition required to fill the checklist correctly.

Consider three of the findings already established. The Dragunov on the logo. Western analysts looking at Iranian-aligned militia branding have a mental model for what they expect to see — weapon imagery, raised fist, Arabic calligraphy, a flag-style composition. The HAYI logo has all of that. The general checklist is filled. What is wrong is the specific weapon. The Kalashnikov silhouette is the universal symbol of every actual pro-Iranian Shia militia from Lebanon to Yemen. The Dragunov is not. The error is not the absence of weapon imagery. It is weapon imagery filled in by somebody who knew the genre required a rifle and did not know which rifle.

The routing through Iraqi militia Telegram channels. Western analysts watch the Iraqi pro-Iranian militia ecosystem because that is where Iranian-aligned content normally appears. Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Liwa Zulfiqar, the Sabereen aggregator — these are the channels Western OSINT specialists already monitor. Content posted on those channels is content already pre-flagged for attribution. A real Iranian operation is not optimising its content placement for Western analyst detection — it has its own audience, internal to the Iranian-aligned ecosystem, that the placement is for. Content placed on exactly the channels Western analysts watch, in the sequence Western analysts would expect, is content placed for Western analyst consumption.

And the third instance, which appears in the post-Golders Green operational record. On 15 April 2026, an incendiary device was thrown into the car park of Iran International’s offices in Wembley — the most prominent Persian-language broadcaster critical of the Iranian regime, based in London. HAYI claimed responsibility. Three young men were arrested after a police chase: Oisin McGuinness, twenty-one, and Nathan Dunn, nineteen, both from Watford, and a sixteen-year-old. None of the three fits any ideological profile of pro-Iranian militancy. The device was thrown into a car park and went out on its own. The Met has stated it is not treating the incident as terrorism. Iran International has been a documented IRGC target on British soil for years — the UK’s own counter-terrorism leadership has flagged repeated Iranian state plots against the broadcaster, and the operational tradecraft of those plots involves contractors with surveillance teams and proper preparation, not teenagers throwing burning containers into car parks.²⁵

The point is not that Iran could not target Iran International. Iran has targeted Iran International, repeatedly, with the kind of professional tradecraft the documented record describes. The point is that an operation building a fictitious Iranian-aligned militant brand from scratch would, on any reasonable construction of the design problem, include an Iran International–style target on the list of attacks. Western analysts looking for Iranian-state activity in Europe have a known pattern: Iranian operations sometimes target Iran International. If the operation is being built to be read as Iranian-aligned, the target list has to include the targets a real Iranian operation would attack. Not including one would be the gap in the checklist that gives the brand away. Including one is the checkbox filled.

Three instances, the same logic. The Dragunov is the wrong rifle, but it is a rifle, because the genre requires one. The Iraqi channels are the right channels for distribution, because Western analysts watch them — but a real Iranian operation does not need to optimise for Western detection. The Iran International attack is the right kind of target for an Iranian-aligned brand, but the operational signature of the attackers is wrong for an actual IRGC operation against that target. In each case, the signature visible to Western analysts has been populated. The depth of execution beneath the signature is not what a real operation in that tradition would produce.

The operators are not necessarily inside any of the traditions whose imagery they are deploying. They are people who know what Iranian operations are supposed to look like to Western analysts, and they are giving the analysts what those analysts expect to see.

No Muslim hands on the production. Not in the Qur’an, not in the vocabulary, not in the source language of the Arabic, not in the conceptual framework of the administrator, not in the iconography, not in the soundtrack, not in the languages chosen, and not in the language conspicuously avoided. The fingerprint of the operators is the fingerprint of people fluent in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life and in Western media production — and unfluent in Arabic, in the Qur’an, in Persian, in Shia jurisprudence, in the iconography of real Iranian-aligned militias, in the soundtrack conventions of jihadist media, and in the vocabulary Muslim militants actually use to describe Israel and Jews. That fingerprint is not the fingerprint of a Shia Islamic militant group. It is the fingerprint the original article’s conclusions already pointed toward. The new evidence is consistent with what The Silence After the Lie identified. It is not consistent with anything else.

Share

The Handler That Could Not Be in Iran

The Iranian-handler thesis the pipeline carried required a particular workflow to be running, in real time, from somewhere. The ICCT’s own report described it: “the close proximity of these channels to Iranian-aligned networks, combined with the near-immediate reporting and access to attack footage, suggests that they were informed of the incidents almost in real time, either directly by the perpetrators or via intermediaries.” ²⁶ That sentence describes a coordinator. Someone receiving mobile-phone footage from teenagers in Belgium and the Netherlands within minutes of attacks. Someone applying branded templates to that footage, producing edited claim videos, and pushing them through pre-arranged Telegram channels with hundreds of thousands of followers — fast enough to land branded content within thirty-nine minutes of an attack at four in the morning. A real-time editorial desk, with reliable two-way connectivity into European Telegram infrastructure, working through the night.

The framing the pipeline carried assumed this desk was Iranian, or directed by Iran. That is what Iranian-linked meant by the time it reached the British public. Either the IRGC was running the desk directly, or it was running through proxies it had directed and equipped. Either way, the operational coordination — the editorial work of receiving, branding, and distributing the material — was placed within the Iranian operational orbit. That placement is what allowed the framing to characterise the attacks as Iranian-backed. Without it, the framing has nothing to attach to.

This section examines whether that desk could have been running from inside Iran during the period in question. The answer, on the public record, is that it could not.

On 28 February 2026, following the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, the Iranian government cut its country off from the global internet. NetBlocks, the network observatory that monitors connectivity disruptions worldwide, reported Iran’s internet connectivity dropping to roughly four per cent of ordinary levels within hours of the strikes. Cloudflare Radar described the traffic that day as “close to zero across all major regions.” Through March, the connectivity held at one to two per cent of pre-war levels — a near-total state-imposed blackout, sustained day after day, while the HAYI campaign was running.²⁷

By 21 April 2026, NetBlocks had recorded fifty-three consecutive days of disruption — the longest nationwide internet blackout ever recorded in any country. Iran is, NetBlocks noted, “the first country to have had internet connectivity and then subsequently lost it by reverting to a national network.” ²⁸ Not Russia during the invasion of Ukraine. Not Israel during the war on Gaza. No conflict, in the history of measured connectivity, had produced anything comparable. The Iranian government had imposed on its own population a deeper and longer informational lockdown than any other state had attempted.

The blackout was not a passive failure. The Iranian government built a whitelist. Ordinary Iranians, private businesses, and most of the country’s economy were offline. Connectivity was granted only to those the state had specifically approved — officials, state-affiliated media, security-cleared entities. Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani stated that the state was permitting access only to those who could “get the voice out” — meaning those approved to broadcast on the state’s behalf. Whitelist applications were routed through the state-run Bale messaging app, registered with state telecoms. Every approved connection passed through the state’s gateway. Every packet was logged at the state level.²⁹

This is the connectivity environment the Iranian-handler thesis requires the editorial desk to have been running through. From inside Iran, during the period of the blackout, the desk would have needed reliable, low-latency, two-way connectivity into European Telegram infrastructure — receiving mobile-phone footage from teenagers in Belgium and the Netherlands, applying branded templates, pushing edited videos out to pre-arranged Iraqi militia channels, in some cases within thirty-nine minutes of an attack. That workflow requires bandwidth, speed, and operational privacy. The state-whitelist environment offered none of those things to anyone the state had not specifically approved. Every outgoing packet would have passed through the state gateway, logged and visible to the state security apparatus that had imposed the blackout precisely to prevent unmonitored outbound traffic.

Could the Iranian state itself have run the desk from inside the whitelist environment? The technical answer is yes. The operational answer is that doing so would mean direct state sponsorship of rapid-tempo European attack coordination at the exact moment the state was imposing the blackout to prevent that kind of outbound traffic. It would mean every editorial decision passing through the state’s logged gateway, with no plausible deniability, at the moment the state was demonstrably terrified enough of outbound information leakage to cut its entire population off the global internet. That is the opposite of how hybrid warfare operations are run. The architecture of plausible deniability requires distance between the state and the operation. The Iranian government, during the blackout, could not have given itself less distance from the operation if it had tried.

There is a further fact in the public record that complicates the Iranian-handler thesis from a different direction.

Within forty-six minutes of the Golders Green attack, scene footage of the burning ambulances was on a US-based news aggregator account with around a million followers, registered location Nashville, Tennessee. The post — at 02:21 AM London time — announced that the account had also “seen footage of the attackers” but did not yet publish it. Forty-nine minutes after that, at 03:10 AM, the same account published surveillance footage from the Machzike Hadath Synagogue’s own CCTV system. The footage shows the synagogue’s car park at the moment of the attack, with at least one Hatzola ambulance visible in the frame, bearing a visible in-frame timestamp of 01:36:06 on 23 March 2026 and a camera label reading “Front RHS” — consistent with one camera in the synagogue’s own multi-camera installation. By later that day, the same or related footage had appeared on Sky News, the Jerusalem Post, IBTimes UK, London Now, the National Pulse, Townhall, and the Jewish Edition. The Metropolitan Police’s senior officer on the case, Superintendent Sarah Jackson, said: “We are in the process of examining CCTV and are aware of online footage.” The Met was still examining the footage. Other parties had already published it.³⁰

The ICCT’s own description of the editorial workflow it was studying noted that the channels it identified were “informed of the incidents almost in real time, either directly by the perpetrators or via intermediaries.” The CCTV that appeared on Breaking911 documents the same phenomenon for a different set of intermediaries — people watching the attack location’s information environment closely enough, and connected to global media reliably enough, that internal synagogue surveillance footage was in the hands of a US-based aggregator within forty-six minutes of capture and on its public-facing account by 03:10 AM London time, with broadcast media following within hours. There was a someone. The someone was real. The someone moved fast.

How the footage moved between capture and global publication is not something this article can establish. The Met has not stated. The synagogue has not stated. No party has publicly described the path. What the article can say is what the path was not. The Machzike Hadath Synagogue’s CCTV system is not accessible to the Iranian state. It is not accessible to the IRGC. It is not accessible to Iranian-aligned proxies in Iraq or Lebanon. Whatever path the footage took into Anglosphere media within the first hour of the attack, that path did not run through Iran, and it did not require Iranian state involvement. The investigative question of who routed the footage and through what mechanism is a question for the institutions whose responsibility it is to investigate.

That has implications for the Iranian-handler thesis the pipeline carried. The thesis required real-time editorial coordination from somewhere — receiving footage, branding it, pushing it out fast. The thesis implied the somewhere was Iran or Iranian-directed. But the underlying material — the synagogue’s own surveillance of the attack — was already in Anglosphere media before HAYI’s branded claim video existed. The HAYI editorial desk that produced the branded claim video four hours later did not need to be in Iran to obtain attack footage. The footage was already moving through the open information environment, in the languages and on the platforms HAYI’s operators were demonstrably fluent in. Whatever the answer to the investigative question turns out to be, it is not the one the pipeline carried.

The clearest documented example of the editorial workflow the framing required is in the ICCT’s own report. The Rotterdam synagogue arson on 13 March 2026 occurred at approximately 03:40 AM. The first text mention of the attack on the four pro-Iranian Telegram channels the ICCT was studying was published at 03:57 AM — seventeen minutes later. The corresponding HAYI claim video, branded with the group’s logo and tagged with the date and location of the incident, was released at approximately 04:19 AM. From the moment the attack occurred to the moment a branded HAYI video was on a Shia militia Telegram channel, thirty-nine minutes had passed. The ICCT documented the timing in the body of its report.³¹

That is the workflow window the Iranian-handler thesis must explain. Attack at 03:40. First report at 03:57. Branded video at 04:19. Inside that window: someone received mobile-phone footage of the attack from teenagers in Rotterdam, applied the HAYI logo and the tagging template, and pushed the finished video to pre-arranged Iraqi militia Telegram channels. That is editorial work. It requires receiving raw material, processing it, and distributing the finished product. It cannot be done by someone passively watching a feed. It requires a desk.

The ICCT framed this workflow as evidence of Iranian backing — as material flowing from the perpetrators’ side, through Iranian-aligned coordination, into the amplification network. That framing is what the pipeline’s distribution stage carried to the public the next day. It is also the framing the analysis in this section is contesting on three grounds. The connectivity environment inside Iran during the period in question would not have supported the workflow. The underlying attack footage in the case of Golders Green was already moving through Anglosphere media before the HAYI claim video existed. And the same logic applies to Rotterdam: the footage of an arson attack at a synagogue in the early hours of a Friday morning is not material that could only have reached an editorial desk through Iranian intelligence channels. The phone footage of the perpetrators was on the perpetrators’ own phones, on whatever networks they used to share it, and the desk that produced the HAYI video needed only access to those networks — not to Iran.

That access raises the structural question section two has been working toward. If the desk does not have to be in Iran, where could it have been?

The logical possibilities are finite. The first is inside Iran, on the state whitelist, operating with explicit state approval and through the state’s logged gateway. The connectivity case has already been made. This possibility requires the Iranian state to be running the operation directly, with full visibility, at the moment the state was demonstrably terrified enough of outbound information leakage to cut its entire population off the global internet. It would mean the IRGC or its equivalent commanding the editorial desk through the state’s own monitored network, with no plausible deniability and no operational distance. It is the opposite of how hybrid warfare runs. It can be ruled out on operational grounds even though the technical possibility exists.

The second is through the Iraqi Telegram channels the ICCT documented as the dissemination network. Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Liwa Zulfiqar, the Sabereen aggregator channel, and others within the broader Iraqi Telegram ecosystem the ICCT studied. Iraq was not under blackout. Iraqi connectivity to European Telegram infrastructure was normal. An editorial desk operating through these channels could in principle have run the workflow the ICCT described. But this possibility, if accepted, dissolves the framing the pipeline carried rather than confirming it. The framing the pipeline carried was that the attacks were Iranian-backed — not Iraqi-routed, not ecosystem-adjacent, but directed by Iran. The militia organisations behind some of these channels — Asaib Ahl al-Haq most directly — have documented operational ties to the IRGC’s Quds Force.³² The Telegram channel administrators and operational chains of the channels themselves have not been independently documented. The militia’s political alignment does not transfer automatically to the channel’s operational chain. To accept that the workflow ran through Iraqi infrastructure is to give up the strong form of the Iranian-handler thesis the pipeline depended on, and to retreat to a weaker claim. That retreat is partly defensible and partly not. The dissemination of HAYI’s material through these channels is established on the public record. What is not established is that those channels originated the material, edited the material, were operationally directed by Iran in disseminating HAYI material, or were operationally responsible for the attacks themselves. The weaker claim, examined honestly, splits in two: the dissemination part runs through channels affiliated with Iranian-aligned militias; the production and execution parts do not. The retreat from Iran-backed to a weaker version is therefore not a retreat to a coherent thesis. It is a retreat that holds for one operational layer and collapses for the other two. And in any case, neither version of the claim is what the public was told. The public was told Iran-linked, in a tone that implied direction.

The third is somewhere else entirely, with the Iraqi militia infrastructure used as cover. Under this possibility, the editorial desk is operating from any location with reliable internet access — the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, anywhere in Europe, anywhere with a domestic broadband connection — and is pushing finished material into the Iraqi Telegram channels for amplification. The dissemination network does the political work of making the material look Iranian-backed. The actual editorial work is happening elsewhere. This possibility is consistent with everything section one of this article documented about HAYI’s operators: their fluency in English, in American spelling conventions, in Religious Zionist vocabulary, in the iconographic vocabulary of axis-of-resistance branding without the substance, in Christian and Jewish philosophical reasoning rather than Islamic. The desk that produced HAYI’s materials does not show the fluencies a desk inside Iran or running through Iraqi militia editorial structures would show. It shows the fluencies of operators working from somewhere with deep cultural literacy in Western and Israeli media space.

The article does not assert the third possibility. It identifies it as available. The ICCT did not identify it as available because the ICCT treated the dissemination network as evidence of origin. That assumption — that material distributed through Iranian-aligned channels must have originated within Iranian-aligned operational structures — is the analytical move the section has been working to dismantle. Distribution is not origin. A Telegram channel administrator can be genuine, persuaded, paid, infiltrated, or shared. A channel that amplifies particular content can amplify content the channel’s usual ecosystem did not originate. The Iraqi Telegram channels the ICCT identified were the route HAYI’s material took into the amplification ecosystem. They were not necessarily the place HAYI’s material was produced. The ICCT’s reading collapsed those two questions into one. The evidence does not support that collapse.

What the public record establishes about the editorial desk is structural. It moved fast. It produced AI-generated multi-language statements with English as the source. It used American spelling on a UK target. It reasoned from Christian and Jewish philosophy. It deployed Religious Zionist vocabulary on the founding statement of a supposedly Shia Islamist group. It altered a Quranic verse no Muslim composes. It used the visual idiom of axis-of-resistance branding without the substance. It used orchestral music where nasheeds belong. And it was demonstrably plugged into an information environment that had already moved synagogue surveillance footage of the Golders Green attack into US-based and broadcast media before the HAYI claim video for that attack appeared. None of that fingerprint is consistent with a desk inside Iran. None of it is consistent with a desk running through Iraqi militia editorial structures. All of it is consistent with a desk operating from a location with deep cultural fluency in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life and Western media production, using the Iraqi militia channels as the relay path into the global information environment.

The handler that the pipeline’s framing required could not have been in Iran. The Iraqi militia infrastructure is a route, not an editor. Where the editorial desk actually was is a question for the institutions whose job it is to investigate. What this article establishes is that the question exists, and that the answer the pipeline delivered is not consistent with the public record.

Share

What Came After Golders Green

The first article documented the attacks HAYI claimed between 9 and 23 March — Liège, Rotterdam, two in Amsterdam, the Bank of New York Mellon site, Golders Green, alongside the falsely claimed incidents in Greece, Antwerp, Heemstede, France, and Haarlem. Five real attacks. Five fabrications or misrepresentations. The pattern of mixing genuine arson with falsely claimed incidents to manufacture the appearance of a coordinated transcontinental campaign was established in those first two weeks.

After Golders Green, the campaign continued. The pattern continued with it.

On 12 April 2026, two suspects climbed the fence of the Beth Yaakov Synagogue in Skopje, North Macedonia — the country’s only synagogue — poured accelerant on the entrance, and threw a firebomb. The doors and courtyard were charred. The fire did not sustain. The North Macedonian Foreign Minister condemned the attack publicly. The country’s top five religious leaders, including the head of the Islamic Religious Community, issued a joint statement of condemnation. North Macedonia had not seen a synagogue attack since the Holocaust. Three days later, on 15 April, HAYI released a video claiming responsibility, describing the synagogue as a “symbol of the historical and cultural identity of Jews of this region” with a “deep connection with the Zionist regime.” The vocabulary had shifted. Zionist regime is the standard hostile-rhetoric term used by Iran, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi Shia militias — the language a real axis operative would actually write. The operators were correcting the tells the earlier material had made visible.³³

The same HAYI video also claimed the Eclipse Grillbar in Munich, a Jewish-owned restaurant attacked the previous Friday with a small explosive device causing minimal damage. The video noted that the attack had occurred after midnight when the restaurant was closed, but added that it “could have happened during the day and the Zionists would have been killed.” The Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation, including an investigation of the HAYI video itself.³⁴

Then came the London cluster. On the evening of 15 April, an incendiary device was thrown into the car park of Iran International’s offices in Wembley — the attack discussed in section one of this article. On the same night, two men attempted an arson attack on the Finchley Reform Synagogue in north London by filling bottles with what was suspected to be petrol and throwing a brick at them.⁴³ When the bottles failed to ignite, the suspects fled. They were subsequently arrested and charged. Two days later, on the night of 17 April, an attempted arson hit the Hendon offices of a building that still bore the sign of Jewish Futures, a Jewish educational organisation. Three bottles containing accelerant were placed against the building and set alight; the bottles failed to ignite fully and the damage was minor. On 16 April, HAYI had posted a video claiming responsibility for a drone attack on the Israeli Embassy in Kensington, with two figures in protective clothing and a message that the embassy was being targeted with “radioactive and dangerous carcinogenic materials.” The Metropolitan Police investigated, closing public access to Kensington Gardens. The Met announced on Saturday 18 April that no hazardous materials had been found and that the incident was over. The HAYI claim of an Embassy drone strike — like the claimed attacks in Greece, Heemstede, France, and Haarlem before it — described an event that did not happen.³⁵

Overnight on 18–19 April, an arson attack hit the Kenton United Synagogue in Harrow. There was minor smoke damage to a room inside. A 17-year-old boy was arrested, charged, and pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court to arson not endangering life. In the police interview reported in court, the suspect said: “I have no hate towards the Jewish people or their community. I didn’t know it was a synagogue. I genuinely thought it was an empty building.” He was bailed pending sentencing, with conditions including staying away from synagogues. An accomplice filmed the attack, and the footage was released by HAYI in the claim video that followed.³⁶

The Met’s count by late April had moved to twenty-six arrests across the entire campaign, eight charges, one conviction. The first terrorism-related arrest came on 26 April, more than a month after Golders Green and after the entire London cluster — and it was on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts only, not on any predicate of foreign-state direction. Across the campaign, the suspect demographic has been consistent. The Rotterdam attackers were teenagers from Tilburg, aged seventeen to nineteen. The Golders Green attackers charged are eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and seventeen years old. The Iran International suspects are sixteen, nineteen, and twenty-one. The Kenton suspect is seventeen. The Finchley Reform suspects fled when their petrol bottles failed to ignite. None of the demographic profiles matches what an ideologically committed Shia militant cell, or any committed jihadi network, would produce. The profile that matches is the profile the Met has publicly named — paid criminal proxies, recruited for cash, with no allegiance to the cause.

There is a third fact the campaign produces that the demographic profile alone does not explain. Across Belgium, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom — across nearly two months and more than a dozen claimed attacks — not one person has been killed and not one person has been injured. Bottles fail to ignite. Fires fail to sustain. Accelerant is poured on benches and courtyards rather than on doors. A burning container thrown into the Iran International car park, in the Met’s words, “immediately put itself out.”⁴⁴ Attacks are staged at night, when synagogues are empty and Jewish-owned restaurants are closed. The Munich communiqué itself notes that the attack on the Eclipse Grillbar “could have happened during the day and the Zionists would have been killed” — an admission, in HAYI’s own words, that the timing was chosen to avoid this.

No real Shia militant campaign has a casualty record like that. Hezbollah’s bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 killed twenty-nine. The AMIA bombing in 1994 killed eighty-five. The Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 killed two hundred and forty-one US service members. The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 killed nineteen. The Burgas bus bombing in 2012 killed six. The IRGC’s documented assassination operations against Iranian dissidents in Europe have killed people. Across forty years and on every continent, the consistent pattern of real Shia militant operations against Western, Israeli, and Jewish targets is the production of casualties — because that is the operational point of armed jihad in the framework these groups operate within. A supposedly Shia Islamic militant group, declaring jihad against Western and Israeli interests, conducting a transcontinental campaign over nearly two months, that produces a body count of zero, is not a campaign that exists anywhere in the historical record. HAYI is the first. The campaign was not designed to kill. It was designed to look as if it had been.

Two further structural facts emerge from the post-Golders Green record.

The first is that the fabrication pattern continued. The Israeli Embassy drone claim — like the Greece, France, Antwerp, Heemstede, and Haarlem claims before it — was not an actual attack. HAYI continued, after Golders Green, to claim incidents the public record does not contain. The behaviour of mixing real attacks with manufactured ones to amplify apparent reach was not a feature of the early campaign that the operators outgrew. It is a feature of the campaign throughout.

The second is the inverse fact. Between 23 March and the end of April, the campaign expanded its target set from synagogues, Jewish schools, and an American bank into Persian-language media (Iran International), an Israeli diplomatic site (the Embassy drone claim), and a Jewish educational charity. The targeting profile broadened in exactly the directions the brand needed to broaden to maintain its claim of being an Iranian-aligned militant organisation operating across multiple categories of legitimate-from-the-perspective-of-the-claimed-identity targets. Each new target type closed a checklist gap. By late April, HAYI’s claimed target set covered every category of target a Western analyst would expect a real Iranian-aligned militant campaign in Europe to attack — synagogues, a Jewish school, Jewish-owned businesses, an Iranian dissident broadcaster, and a claimed strike on an Israeli embassy. The brand had been completed.

The campaign that followed Golders Green did not contradict the analysis of section one. It extended it. The fingerprint stayed the same. The targeting evolved in the directions the brand-construction required. The fabrication pattern persisted. The suspect demographic remained — across multiple countries, multiple cities, multiple supposed cells — the same demographic of recruited teenagers and young adults with no identifiable ideological commitment to the cause they were nominally serving. And the Metropolitan Police, faced with this pattern, characterised it publicly as paid criminal proxies rather than as terrorism.

On 29 April 2026, HAYI did what its claim apparatus had done across the campaign — but for the first time, the underlying event involved real wounded people. A 45-year-old man with what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner publicly described as a history of serious violence and mental health issues walked through Golders Green in broad daylight with a knife and stabbed two Jewish men, aged 76 and 34, before attempting to stab the police officers who arrested him.⁴⁶ He did not flee. Hours later, at 15:21 BST, HAYI claimed responsibility for the attack, calling him one of their “lone wolves.” The pattern is the pattern the article has already catalogued. HAYI claimed the firebombing in Greece that did not happen. It claimed the attack in Heemstede that was a household gas explosion. It claimed an attack in Antwerp that was a botched theft from a Moroccan woman whose car was then set on fire. It claimed an attack in Haarlem that occurred before the supposed group existed. It claimed a drone strike on the Israeli Embassy that was three benign jars in Kensington Gardens. Now it has claimed the stabbing of two Jewish men by an unstable man with no established Iranian links and no established connection to any Islamic militant group. The claim apparatus claims everything. That is its function. It is not an apparatus that organises attacks. It is an apparatus that converts attacks — real, manufactured, falsely attributed, or unrelated — into evidence for the narrative the operators were paid to construct. The Golders Green stabbing was carried out by a man the police had reason to know about. The attack occurred at 11:16 BST. HAYI's claim video appeared on Telegram at 15:21 BST — four hours later.

The Met Now Says It

In the nearly two months since the Golders Green attack, the Metropolitan Police have made twenty-six arrests connected to the broader campaign of attacks attributed to HAYI. Eight people have been charged with arson-related offences. One has been convicted of arson. On 26 April, nearly two months after the Golders Green attack, one man was arrested on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts — the first arrest in the entire investigation under terrorism legislation. The investigation that began under the lens of an Iranian-directed Islamic terror campaign has been worked, in operational terms, almost entirely as a series of paid-proxy arson cases. The numbers tell their own story. Twenty-six arrests. Eight arson charges. One arson conviction. One terrorism-related arrest, nearly two months in.

The senior officers running the investigation have characterised it in their own words. On 19 April, after a series of attacks on synagogues and Jewish premises across north and northwest London, Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans, the United Kingdom’s Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing, gave a joint press conference outside Kenton United Synagogue in Harrow. Their statements are on the public record, archived in full on the Metropolitan Police website. They are not consistent with the framing the pipeline carried.³⁷

Evans’s characterisation of the operational pattern is precise. “I have spoken at length of the Iranian regime’s routine uses of criminal proxies. We are considering whether this tactic is being used here in London — recruiting violence as a service. Individuals carrying out these crimes often have no allegiance to the cause and are taking quick cash for their crimes. To anyone even considering getting involved — my message to you would be this: the stakes are high, and it is absolutely not worth the risk for a small reward. Those tasking you will not be there when you are arrested and face court. You will be used once and thrown away without a second thought.” ³⁷ That is the Met’s senior counter-terrorism coordinator describing what the investigation has actually found — not Iranian operatives committing attacks, but criminal proxies recruited for cash, with no ideological allegiance to the cause they are nominally serving. Violence as a service. The phrase she chose is the precise opposite of the framing the pipeline sold to the public. The pipeline framing was Iranian-directed Islamic terror. The framing the Met is now publicly using is recruited criminal violence dressed in cause language nobody believes.

Jukes drew the comparison directly. “We’ve seen a pattern with other actors of thugs for hire, people taking cash that looks like quick and easy money. This is part of the modern hybrid war fought by proxies.” ³⁸ The other actors he was referring to are documented. In March 2024, an arson attack hit a London warehouse linked to Ukrainian aid. Six men were later convicted — five of aggravated arson, a sixth of failing to disclose information about terrorist acts. The ringleader, Dylan Earl, had been recruited by Russia’s Wagner Group via Telegram and was sentenced in October 2025 to seventeen years for what the prosecution described as state-sponsored arson on behalf of Wagner — the first conviction under the National Security Act 2023. The pattern Jukes is describing — thugs for hire, taking cash, quick and easy money — is the pattern documented in the Earl case. Evans’s violence as a service names the same model. The Met is publicly characterising the HAYI cases as operationally similar to the Wagner-Earl proxy model, while continuing to leave the upstream-actor question open.

The Earl precedent is not the only documented payment trail in the proxy model. The Soufan Center, in its 17 April 2026 brief on the broader pattern, reported that the minors recruited for the foiled Bank of America Paris attack on 28 March were paid €500–1,000 each — small sums, in line with the quick cash characterisation Evans and Jukes have given the London cases. The proxy model the Met is now publicly describing is not a thesis. It is a documented operational pattern with named figures, in jurisdictions across Europe, in cases where the foreign sponsor has either been named or remains the open question.³⁹

What the Met is not doing is what the Earl case shows can be done. In the Earl case, the foreign sponsor was named at sentencing. The court heard evidence that Earl was acting as a Wagner proxy. The judge sentenced him on that basis. The state-sponsored hostile-activity legislation Parliament passed in 2023 — the National Security Act — was framed for exactly this scenario. It enables prosecutors to bring charges that name the foreign sponsor, that carry significant additional sentences, and that make the foreign-state involvement part of the public court record. Nearly two months into the HAYI investigation, with twenty-six arrests, eight arson charges, and one arson conviction, that legislation has not been used. The first arrest under terrorism legislation came on 26 April — nearly two months in, and on suspicion only of preparing terrorist acts, not on any foreign-state-direction predicate. The legislation Parliament wrote for the kind of attack the pipeline framing described is sitting unused. The Met has not named a foreign sponsor.

This is the disjunction that defines section three. The pipeline carried a story of Iranian-directed Islamic terrorism. The senior officers running the investigation are publicly characterising the cases as a paid-proxy criminal campaign, structurally comparable to the Wagner-Earl model. The legislation written for foreign-state-directed hostile activity is not being applied. No foreign sponsor has been named. Nearly two months in, the gap between what the public was told and what the Met is operating against is not a gap of nuance. It is a gap that requires explanation.

The Lie, the Silence, and What Comes Next

The Silence After the Lie named what happened.⁴⁰ The pipeline laundered misinformation into the mainstream. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies — a Washington-based pro-Israel organisation whose IRS filings state its mission as enhancing Israel’s image and educating the public on Israeli-Arab issues — set the predicate on 12 March 2026, when Joe Truzman in The Long War Journal floated the Iranian link in English-language coverage for the first time.⁴¹ The Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism formalised it on 16 March, in a special report giving the predicate its state-authoritative imprint — a ministry whose stated remit is combating antisemitism but whose operational mandate, on the documented record, includes Israeli state propaganda operations.⁴² The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague laundered it on 23 March, in a report that passed the conclusion forward without considering the motivations or operational backgrounds of its sources, despite the inconsistencies and doubts the report itself documented. The mainstream press, the BBC at its head, distributed it. Not terror with bombs or bullets. Terror with narrative. Israeli terror by narrative. A PsyOp, executed against two communities at once.

This article has put the evidence behind that naming.

The fingerprint of the people who built HAYI is the fingerprint of operators fluent in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life and Western media production. The altered Qur’an. The Religious Zionist vocabulary. The American English of the administrator. The Christian and Jewish philosophical reasoning. The deletion of the account when asked who was paying. The misspelled Islamic in Arabic. The orchestral music where nasheeds belong. The absence of one word of Persian in nearly two months of operation. The institutional architecture that did not exist before 9 March 2026 yet was running a thirty-nine-minute editorial workflow by 13 March. None of this is the fingerprint of a Shia Islamic militant group. All of it is the fingerprint of an operation built by people fluent in the cultural and religious vocabulary of the very community the campaign was designed to terrify, dressed in the symbology of the community the campaign was designed to blame.

The Iranian-handler thesis the pipeline carried is excluded by the public record. Iran was, during the period in question, under the deepest and longest state-imposed internet blackout ever recorded. The connectivity environment did not support the workflow the framing required. The synagogue’s own surveillance footage was already moving through Anglosphere media before HAYI’s branded video for that attack existed. Distribution through Iraqi militia channels is not origin. The framing the pipeline delivered to the public is not consistent with what was operationally possible.

The Metropolitan Police, nearly two months in, have confirmed the operational shape of the campaign without confirming the predicate the pipeline sold. Recruiting violence as a service, in the words of the senior counter-terrorism coordinator. Thugs for hire, in the words of the deputy commissioner. The Wagner-Earl proxy model, named explicitly. Twenty-six arrests. Eight arson charges. One arson conviction. The legislation Parliament wrote for foreign-state-directed hostile activity has not been used. No foreign sponsor has been named. The same Met that named Wagner in the Earl case has not named Iran in this one. The reason for the absence is on the public record by virtue of being absent. The evidence the Met would need to bring an Iran charge has not been built, because what was built was never aimed at Iran.

What was built was aimed at the British public. At Jewish families in Golders Green made to fear an enemy the evidence does not support. At Muslim families across Britain carrying the weight of an attack their communities had no part in and condemn without qualification. At a public made to absorb a manufactured threat and to accept the political consequences flowing from it — the IRGC proscription campaigns accelerated, the legislation expanded, the war policy hardened, the Counter-Islam industry refed. Both communities are victims. Neither is the beneficiary. The beneficiary is the state that manufactured the fear, and the industry that profits from harvesting it.

One fact above all others should sit at the centre of this accounting. The pipeline sold the British public a story of Iranian-directed Islamic terror. Terrorism, by the definition the framing relied on, kills. Nearly two months in, across six countries and more than a dozen claimed attacks against synagogues, Jewish schools, Jewish-owned businesses, an Iranian dissident broadcaster, false claims, and a claimed strike on an Israeli embassy, the 29 April 2026 stabbing in Golders Green produced the first injuries.⁴⁶ The campaign that was framed as the gravest Iranian-linked Islamist threat to British Jews in a generation produced, while the war was still raging, an operational record of zero casualties. That is not a feature of any real jihadist campaign in living memory. It is the signature of an operation built to manufacture fear without paying the price in blood that real terror exacts. The framing was not just wrong about who. It was wrong about what.

The institutions that laundered the operation will not correct themselves. The FDD set the predicate doing exactly what a front organisation for Zionist Israeli interests is built to do. The Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs built the report doing exactly what a ministry whose operational mandate includes Israeli state propaganda is built to do. The ICCT gave the framing research-body credibility without the due diligence that would have caught the Quranic alteration the IMDA’s own copy contained. The BBC and the mainstream outlets that ran the framing did so without disclosing the provenance to their audiences. The propagandists were never in the business of accuracy. The mainstream outlets that should have stood between the PsyOp and the public failed to, and face no requirement to repair the damage. The well was poisoned by actors with motive, capacity, and institutional cover to do exactly what was done — and the cleanup will not come from the people who poisoned the well.

The British government and the Metropolitan Police are complicit in the operation’s continuing effect on the British public. Nearly two months in, with twenty-six arrests, the Met has downgraded the offence from terrorism to criminality without retracting the Iran attribution that justified the original framing. The British press has followed the Met’s lead, softening the framing without correcting it. The British state and its principal broadcaster sit inside a structural relationship with Israel — diplomatic, intelligence-sharing, treaty-grounded — that constrains what they are willing to say about an Israeli information operation directed at their own public. The European Union’s Association Agreement with Israel, the United Kingdom’s bilateral partnerships, and the broader Western state architecture make Israeli information operations on Western soil something Western governments are institutionally configured to overlook rather than confront. That is not innocence. That is complicity by structural alignment.

The first article asked why no foreign sponsor had been named. This article has documented why: because the foreign sponsor named at the door of the operation is not the one the pipeline pointed at. The narrative-construction layer is on the documented record — the FDD predicate, the IMDA report, the ICCT laundering, the BBC distribution. That layer is Israeli-built. The operational-execution layer — who built the HAYI brand, ran the editorial desk, and recruited the proxies on the ground — is a separate question this article does not answer. What the evidence establishes is that the actors the public was told to suspect are excluded by the operational record. What it does not establish is who is responsible. That question has not been investigated. It must now be asked.

The hate is not reinforced by the fire. It is reinforced by the silence after the lie. The silence is not an accident. It is the product. And until the framing is publicly put right, with the same prominence the framing received, both communities will continue to be forced to experience the effects of the operation. The Jewish community will continue to fear an enemy it does not have. The Muslim community will continue to carry the blame for an attack it did not commit. And the state that manufactured the fear will continue to harvest it.

Until it is put right, both communities cannot heal and the public cannot see the true problem.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Metropolitan Police, “Further arrest in investigation led by counter terrorism officers,” 26 April 2026.

² Metropolitan Police, “Statements on linked arson attacks in north west London,” 19 April 2026. Statement by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans, Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing.

³ Crown Prosecution Service, “How the CPS used new National Security Act legislation to prosecute the plot to sabotage Ukrainian aid warehouses on UK soil,” July 2025. R v Earl & others, sentenced at the Old Bailey by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, 24 October 2025 — the first conviction under the National Security Act 2023.

⁴ International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), Hybrid Threat Signals: Assessing Possible Iranian Involvement in Recent Attacks in Europe, Julian Lanchès, 23 March 2026, on the HAYI announcement of 9 March 2026 circulated via Telegram channel affiliated with the Iraqi pro-Iranian militia Liwa Zulfiqar.

⁵ Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, “Special Report: Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia,” 16 March 2026 (updated 24 March 2026).

⁶ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026.

⁷ HAYI Golders Green communiqué, circulated via Telegram, 23 March 2026, as reproduced in the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs special report on HAYI. The opening Quranic citation is from Surah At-Tawbah 9:41. The published image shows the verb form wa-jāhadū (past tense) rather than the canonical wa-jāhidū (imperative). The canonical Arabic text of Surah 9:41 is available in every standard mushaf.

⁸ HAYI Golders Green communiqué, 23 March 2026, as reproduced in the IMDA special report.

⁹ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026, on the second HAYI Telegram channel created 21 March 2026: “there are also a number of inconsistencies with this account, foremost the misspelling of the Arabic channel name, likely resulting from an incorrect English translation.”

¹⁰ CBS News, “European antisemitism attacks: group threatens US-Israel interests worldwide,” Joe Stocker and Haley Ott, 24 March 2026.

¹¹ Lucas Webber, senior threat intelligence analyst at Tech Against Terrorism, quoted in CBS News, 24 March 2026.

¹² ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026, p. 6.

¹³ Adam Rawnsley, “Is that an AK-47 on Hizballah’s flag?”, Center for a New American Security, 6 September 2016.

¹⁴ Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi profile: Hoover Institution. Credentials: BA Brasenose College, Oxford; PhD Swansea University; James Callaghan Thesis Prize 2024–25; affiliations with Middle East Forum, Hoover Institution, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the ICCT.

¹⁵ Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, quoted in Middle East Eye, “Ashab al-Yamin: The obscure new group claiming the Jewish ambulance attack,” Areeb Ullah and Mohamed Mulla, 24 March 2026.

¹⁶ Adam Hadley, founder and CEO of Tech Against Terrorism (UN-backed), quoted in The National, March 2026.

¹⁷ Avi Jorisch, Beacon of Hatred: Inside Hizbullah’s al-Manar Television, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2004.

¹⁸ Rita Katz, SITE Intelligence Group, quoted in NPR, “What Does It Mean When ISIS Claims Responsibility For An Attack?”, 24 May 2017.

¹⁹ Michael Knights, “Profile: Asaib Ahl al-Haq,” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 27 April 2021.

²⁰ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026.

²¹ Sharon Adarlo, Militant Wire, quoted in CBS News, 24 March 2026.

²² Jerusalem Post, “’The regime is a customer’: BBC interviews activist behind pro-Iran Lego propaganda videos,” April 2026.

²³ Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, “What Is HAYI, The Shadowy Islamist Group Claiming Attacks Across Europe?”, Meliha Kesmer, 17 April 2026.

²⁴ Counter Extremism Project, “Asaib Ahl al-Haq” profile, on al-Khazali’s Persian-language meetings with Khamenei and Soleimani.

²⁵ UK Intelligence and Security Committee, Iran (special report), published July 2025, on the Iranian state threat to the UK and Iran’s use of proxy criminals to target Iranian dissidents and Jewish/Israeli targets on UK soil. Ken McCallum, Director General of MI5, annual threat update, October 2025, citing “more than twenty potentially lethal Iran-backed plots” tracked since the prior year.

²⁶ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026.

²⁷ NetBlocks, reports on Iran connectivity disruption beginning 28 February 2026.

²⁸ NetBlocks, statement on Iran reaching fifty-three consecutive days of disruption, c. 21 April 2026.

²⁹ Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani statement on whitelist access, March 2026, reported by Iranian state media. State-run Bale messaging app routing for whitelist applications: Article 19, “Iran’s national internet and the Bale app,” 2024.

³⁰ Breaking911 X account posts, 23 March 2026 (02:21 AM and 03:10 AM London time):

Statement of Detective Superintendent Sarah Jackson per Metropolitan Police press contact, 23–24 March 2026. Timestamp preservation:

³¹ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026, timing data for the Rotterdam attack of 13 March 2026.

³² Counter Extremism Project, “Asaib Ahl al-Haq” profile: “AAH is one of three prominent Iraqi Shiite militias funded and trained by Iran’s external military wing, the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).” U.S. State Department, designation of AAH as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 3 January 2020.

³³ Times of Israel, “North Macedonian synagogue hit by arson in country’s 1st antisemitic attack since Holocaust,” 15 April 2026. HAYI claim: Jerusalem Post, “Ashab al-Yamin claimed responsibility for Skopje, Munich attacks on Jewish sites,” 15 April 2026.

³⁴ Jerusalem Post, “Ashab al-Yamin claimed responsibility for Skopje, Munich attacks on Jewish sites,” 15 April 2026.

³⁵ Iran International incident, 15 April 2026: Committee to Protect Journalists, “3 arrested after arson attack on London-based Iran International,” 16 April 2026. Finchley Reform, Jewish Futures Hendon, and Israeli Embassy drone claim: Times of Israel, “Arson attempt hits London synagogue; Iran-linked group claims attack,” 18 April 2026. Met response on the Embassy drone claim: Metropolitan Police statement, 19 April 2026.

³⁶ R v [name redacted under reporting restrictions], Westminster Magistrates’ Court, April 2026, reported in The Guardian / Irish Times, “Iran behind low-level ‘hybrid warfare’ attacks in Europe, analysts say,” 23 April 2026.

³⁷ Metropolitan Police, “Statements on linked arson attacks in north west London,” 19 April 2026.

³⁸ Matt Jukes, BBC interview, 19 April 2026, reported in Times of Israel, “UK arrests 2 teens as ‘thugs for hire’ after latest arson attack on London synagogue,” 21 April 2026.

³⁹ The Soufan Center, “Iran War Exacerbates the Terrorist Threat Landscape in Europe,” IntelBrief, 17 April 2026.

⁴⁰ James S. Coates, “The Silence After the Lie: How an Israeli Influence Operation Became the News — and No One Corrected the Record,” Fireline Press, April 2026.

⁴¹ Joe Truzman, “Purported Iran-backed group claims responsibility for attacks in Belgium and Greece,” The Long War Journal / Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 12 March 2026. FDD founding mission documented in Sima Vaknin-Gil (then Director General, Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs), public remarks, 2018, reported in Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2018.

⁴² The Guardian, “Israel fund US university protest Gaza antisemitism,” 24 June 2024, on the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs’ propaganda operations.

⁴³ RFE/RL, “What Is HAYI, The Shadowy Islamist Group Claiming Attacks Across Europe?”, Meliha Kesmer, 17 April 2026: “None of the attacks caused casualties.” Confirmed across reporting on the campaign through 28 April 2026.

⁴⁴ Metropolitan Police statement on the Iran International incident, 17 April 2026, reported in Euronews, “Three charged over attempted arson on Persian-language TV channel, UK police say,” 17 April 2026.

⁴⁵ Jerusalem Post, "Two wounded in London terror stabbing against Golders Green Jews, HAYI takes responsibility," 29 April 2026. The HAYI claim was first reported by SITE Intelligence Group and circulated via Iraqi Shia militia–affiliated Telegram channels.

⁴⁶ Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, public statement at the scene of the 29 April 2026 Golders Green stabbing, reported in ITV News London, "'Shame on you': Met boss and local MP heckled after two Jewish men are stabbed in terror attack," 29 April 2026; and The Jewish Chronicle, "Golders Green stabbing: Suspect arrested as two injured," 29 April 2026. Suspect's actions and arrest detailed in Metropolitan Police statement, 29 April 2026, as reported across BBC, ITV News, Jerusalem Post, and Jewish Chronicle coverage of the same date.

Franco is not a random pundit. He holds a Juris Doctor from Creighton University. He served as Assistant Administrator for Latin America at USAID from 2002 to 2007 — one of the longest tenures in that role under the Bush administration. He was a foreign policy advisor on John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and a surrogate for Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2024 campaigns. He served as chief counsel to the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee.¹ This is a man with legal training, government experience, and a professional obligation to know what international humanitarian law actually says.

He either does not know, or he does not care. Neither option is comforting.

President Trump had issued a series of public threats targeting Iran’s civilian infrastructure — bridges, power plants, electrical grids, desalination facilities — ahead of a deadline demanding Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz.² On 7 April 2026, he posted on Truth Social: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”³ The interviewer asked a fair question: do these threats constitute war crimes? Franco’s answer was a masterclass in confident wrongness. He made three claims:

One: you cannot commit a war crime by threatening to do something — only by doing it.

Two: the real war criminals are the Iranians, who have been striking civilian infrastructure in Gulf states.

Three: if threatening infrastructure is a war crime, then Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower are all war criminals.

Each of these claims is wrong, misleading, or both. And each maps onto a broader pattern — the way international law gets selectively invoked, selectively dismissed, and selectively explained depending on who is doing what to whom.

This article takes Franco’s claims one at a time. Not because he matters — he is one of hundreds of commentators making identical arguments across cable news and social media — but because his segment is a near-perfect specimen. Every evasion, every deflection, every confident falsehood that circulates in the public conversation about war crimes is present in ninety seconds of live television. If you can see through Franco, you can see through all of them.

“You don’t commit a war crime unless you do something”

Franco’s first claim is the foundation on which the rest of his argument sits. It sounds intuitive. You cannot be guilty of a crime you did not commit. In domestic criminal law, there is a version of this that holds — you generally cannot be convicted of murder for thinking about murder. But international humanitarian law is not domestic criminal law, and the distinction matters in ways Franco either does not understand or chose not to mention.

The United Nations Charter — which the United States signed on 26 June 1945 and ratified through the Senate, making it binding domestic law — addresses this directly. Article 2(4) states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”⁴

Read that again. The threat or use of force. Not the use of force alone. The drafters of the Charter did not accidentally include the word “threat.” They included it because they understood — in 1945, in the wreckage of a war that killed tens of millions — that the threat of force against another state is itself a violation of international law. It does not require follow-through. It does not require a bomb to land. The threat is the violation.

This is not an obscure academic reading. The UN Security Council’s own repertoire confirms that Article 2(4) “prohibits the threat or use of force” and has been cited in dozens of resolutions addressing situations where states threatened the territorial integrity or political independence of others.⁵ The International Court of Justice has confirmed that the prohibition in Article 2(4) is not limited by weapon type or method of delivery — it applies to any threat or use of force, whether nuclear or conventional.⁶

Then there is Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1977. Article 51(2) states: “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.”⁷

Again: threats of violence. Not acts alone. The law explicitly prohibits threatening violence against civilian populations when the primary purpose is to terrorise them. When a sitting president goes on social media and announces that he will destroy every bridge and power plant in a country of ninety million people — that is not a negotiating posture. It is a threat of violence against a civilian population. The text of Article 51(2) was written to cover exactly this.

Now, a fair objection: the United States never ratified Additional Protocol I. The Reagan administration rejected it in 1987, primarily due to Pentagon objections about the prohibition on reprisals and concerns about its application to national liberation movements.⁸ This is true, and it should be stated honestly. But it does not end the analysis. The US State Department has itself acknowledged that key provisions of Additional Protocol I — including Articles 51 and 52 on the protection of civilians — reflect customary international law.⁹ Customary international law is formed when a practice becomes so widespread and consistent among states that it is recognised as legally binding — regardless of whether any individual state has signed a specific treaty codifying it. The prohibition on targeting civilians and on using threats of violence to terrorise civilian populations has achieved that status. The United States cannot opt out of it by declining to ratify the document that wrote it down.

The Rome Statute adds another layer. Article 25(3)(b) establishes individual criminal responsibility for anyone who “orders, solicits or induces” the commission of a crime within the Court’s jurisdiction.¹⁰ Article 8(2)(b)(i) defines as a war crime “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.”¹¹ A public order or inducement to attack civilian infrastructure — issued by the person with the authority to give that order — does not require the attack to succeed for criminal responsibility to attach.

Franco may respond that the United States does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. That is also true. But non-recognition of a court does not change the underlying law. The United States does not recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction over American personnel — but it has enthusiastically supported ICC arrest warrants when they target adversaries. The law is either law or it is not. You do not get to choose which parts apply to you based on whether you like the court that enforces them.

There is a final dimension Franco’s framing erases entirely: the distinction between a private citizen’s angry words and a head of state’s public declaration of intent. When an anonymous account on social media posts angry rhetoric about bombing another country, that is objectionable but carries no operational weight. When the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military on earth publicly identifies specific categories of civilian infrastructure he intends to destroy — bridges, power plants, desalination facilities — and then declares that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” that is a credible threat backed by operational capacity. The legal character of the statement changes categorically. Franco collapses this distinction as though it does not exist. It is the most important distinction in the analysis.

“What about Iran?”

Having failed to address the legal question he was asked, Franco pivots. The real war criminals, he insists, are the Iranians — who have been striking civilian infrastructure in Gulf states. “My god,” he says, “they’ve been hitting Oman and Azerbaijan, not to mention all of the other Gulf states, who of course have nothing to do with this conflict. They’ve hit civilian structures as targets. And no one talks about war crimes that I’ve heard of. For Iranian leaders.”

Set aside for a moment whether Franco’s factual claims about Iranian strikes are accurate. Even if every word is true — even if Iran has struck civilian infrastructure in Oman, Azerbaijan, and every other Gulf state — it does not answer the question he was asked. The question was whether Trump’s threats constitute war crimes. Franco’s answer is: but Iran did bad things too.

This is not a legal argument. It is a rhetorical manoeuvre with a Latin name and a long history of being rejected by every international court that has ever considered it.

It is called tu quoque — “you too.” The argument that if your adversary has committed the same crime, you cannot be held accountable for committing it yourself. It has an intuitive appeal. It sounds like fairness. It is not.

The tu quoque defence was invoked at Nuremberg. Admiral Karl Dönitz, commander of the German Navy, argued that he should not be convicted of unrestricted submarine warfare because the United States Navy had conducted identical operations in the Pacific.¹² Admiral Chester Nimitz provided testimony confirming that American submarines had indeed waged unrestricted warfare against Japan from the day after Pearl Harbor. The tribunal did not acquit Dönitz — but it declined to impose a sentence on the submarine warfare charges, creating what scholars have described as one of the most ambiguous moments in the tribunal’s legacy.¹³

The subsequent Nuremberg Military Tribunals were less ambiguous. In the High Command case, the tribunal stated: “Under general principles of law, an accused does not exculpate himself from a crime by showing that another has committed a similar crime, either before or after the commission of the crime by the accused.”¹⁴ In the Einsatzgruppen and Hostage cases, defendants argued that they could not be convicted of crimes against humanity because Allied bombings had also killed civilians. The tribunals rejected both arguments.¹⁵

Half a century later, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia closed the door entirely. In the Kupreškić case, the Trial Chamber ruled that tu quoque “has no place in contemporary international humanitarian law.” The defining characteristic of modern IHL, the Chamber stated, is “the obligation to uphold key tenets of this body of law regardless of the conduct of enemy combatants.” The obligations are absolute and non-derogable.¹⁶

That word — regardless — is doing the heavy lifting. It means that even if Iran has committed every violation Franco alleges, it does not create a legal permission slip for identical conduct by the United States. It does not reduce Trump’s legal exposure by a single degree. It does not make the threats less threatening or the law less applicable. The conduct of one party to a conflict does not modify the obligations of the other.

Franco knows this — or should. He is a lawyer. Tu quoque is not an obscure doctrine. It is one of the most well-established principles in international criminal law, precisely because it has been raised so often and rejected so consistently. If Franco were making this argument in a courtroom, the judge would not need to look it up. The judge would tell him to sit down.

Now — and this is important — none of this means that Iranian strikes on civilian infrastructure are acceptable or should be ignored. If Iran has struck civilian targets in Oman, Azerbaijan, or any other Gulf state, those strikes should be investigated, documented, and — where the evidence supports it — prosecuted. Franco’s underlying factual claim may be legitimate. But he is not making it as a standalone argument for accountability. He is making it as a shield — deploying Iranian conduct to deflect scrutiny from American threats. That is not a call for consistent application of international law. It is the opposite. It is an argument that the law should apply to them and not to us.

The distinction between “Iran should also be held accountable” and “Iran’s conduct means we cannot be held accountable” is the difference between a legal argument and a talking point. Franco is making the talking point.

Share

“Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman, Eisenhower are terrible war criminals”

Franco’s third move is his most revealing. If threatening to hit infrastructure is a war crime, he argues, then Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower are all terrible war criminals. The implication is that this conclusion is self-evidently absurd — that no reasonable person would call the architects of Allied victory war criminals — and therefore the premise must be wrong.

The problem is that Franco is half-right. And the half he is right about destroys his own argument.

The Allied strategic bombing campaigns of the Second World War killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9–10 March 1945 killed an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 people in a single raid — more immediate deaths than either atomic bomb.¹⁷ The bombing of Dresden in February 1945 killed approximately 25,000 civilians in a city of limited strategic value.¹⁸ Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed between 150,000 and 246,000 people, the overwhelming majority of them civilians.¹⁹

Would these acts face prosecution under modern international humanitarian law? The honest answer is: almost certainly yes. The indiscriminate firebombing of civilian population centres, the deliberate destruction of cities with no meaningful military objective, the use of weapons whose effects could not be limited to military targets — each of these would constitute a grave breach under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and a war crime under the Rome Statute.

Franco presents this as a reductio ad absurdum. If the law says Roosevelt is a war criminal, the law must be wrong. But that is not what the history shows. What the history shows is that the international community looked at what Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman, and Eisenhower did — looked at the firebombings, the area bombings, the nuclear attacks on civilian cities — and decided to build an entire legal architecture to make sure it never happened again.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 were drafted in the direct aftermath of the Second World War.²⁰ The Nuremberg Principles were confirmed by the UN General Assembly in 1950.²¹ Additional Protocol I, with its explicit protections for civilian populations and its prohibition on indiscriminate attacks, was adopted in 1977.²² The Rome Statute, establishing the International Criminal Court with jurisdiction over war crimes, was adopted in 1998.²³ Every one of these instruments exists because of what happened between 1939 and 1945. They are not abstract exercises in legal theory. They are direct responses to specific conduct by specific leaders — including the leaders Franco names.

Franco’s argument amounts to this: because the men who committed these acts were never prosecuted, the acts themselves must be legal. That is not how law works. The absence of prosecution does not create a legal precedent for legality. It creates an injustice — one the international community spent the next half-century trying to correct through the development of the very legal frameworks Franco is now dismissing.

There is a deeper irony Franco appears not to notice. The Nuremberg Tribunal — the same tribunal that tried the defeated Nazi leadership — declared that to initiate a war of aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”²⁴ The tribunal was created by the same Allied leaders Franco cites. They built the system. They established the principle that leaders can be held personally accountable for violations of international law. Franco is invoking the architects of international criminal accountability as evidence that international criminal accountability does not apply.

He is using the men who built the house to argue that the house does not exist.

The temporal dimension matters too. Franco is applying pre-Geneva Convention conduct as a standard for post-Geneva Convention legality. The law in 1945 was different from the law in 2026. That is not a weakness of the legal system — it is the point of the legal system. Laws evolve in response to the horrors they failed to prevent. The fact that strategic bombing was not prosecuted in 1945 does not make threatening it legal in 2026, any more than the fact that slavery was legal in 1820 makes it legal today. Franco’s argument requires you to believe that international law froze in 1945 and nothing adopted since then counts. It is an argument that could only be made by someone who either has not read the Geneva Conventions or is hoping you have not.

The selectivity problem

Franco’s three claims share a common thread. Each one treats international law as something that applies to other people — other countries, other leaders, other conflicts. None of them engages with the possibility that the same legal standards might apply to the United States. This is not an oversight. It is the defining feature of how the United States engages with international humanitarian law — and it has been for decades. The pattern is so consistent it barely qualifies as hypocrisy any more. It is closer to a doctrine.

Consider the timeline. In 2022 and 2023, the United States government accused Russia of committing war crimes for launching missiles and drones at Ukrainian power plants, electrical substations, and heating infrastructure.²⁵ The argument was clear and correct: deliberately targeting civilian energy infrastructure to deprive a population of heating and power, with no proportionate military advantage, constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law. The State Department said so. The Pentagon said so. The President said so.

In April 2026, the President of the United States threatened to destroy every bridge and power plant in Iran. He declared that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” He was asked whether he was concerned about committing war crimes. He said he was “not at all.”²⁶

This is not a matter of interpretation. It is not a question of legal nuance or the complexities of dual-use infrastructure. It is the same conduct — threatening or executing the destruction of civilian energy and transport infrastructure — described by the same government in opposite legal terms depending on who is doing it.

When Russia does it to Ukraine, it is a war crime. When the United States threatens to do it to Iran, it is leverage.

The French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, stated publicly that attacks targeting civilian and energy infrastructure could constitute a war crime.²⁷ The UN Secretary-General’s spokesman said he was “deeply troubled” by the threats, stating that no military objective justified targeting civilian infrastructure.²⁸ Iran’s representative at the United Nations, Amir-Saeid Iravani, described the threats as “incitement to war crimes and potentially genocide.”²⁹ Representative Jim McGovern called them “a genocidal threat to commit war crimes.”³⁰

These are not fringe voices. They are the French Foreign Minister, the United Nations, a senior member of Congress, and the representative of the targeted state. The international response to Trump’s threats was immediate, specific, and grounded in the same legal frameworks the United States itself invokes when the roles are reversed.

Franco mentions none of this. He does not address the Russia comparison. He does not acknowledge that his own government has described identical conduct as criminal when perpetrated by an adversary. He does not engage with the legal frameworks at all — because engaging with them would require him to explain why the law applies in one direction and not the other. And that explanation does not exist.

This is the deeper problem the article is about. It is not really about Adolfo Franco. It is about a political culture that has learned to treat international law as a costume — something you put on when it makes you look righteous and take off when it becomes inconvenient. The Geneva Conventions are sacred when Russia violates them. They are irrelevant when the United States does. The ICC is a beacon of accountability when it issues warrants for African and Russian leaders. It is an illegitimate overreach when it turns its attention to American or Israeli personnel.

The people on X repeating Franco’s arguments are not inventing this selectivity. They are absorbing it — from cable news, from social media, from commentators who say what Franco said and never get challenged on it. Every time a credentialed commentator dismisses the legal question, waves away the treaty obligations, and pivots to “but what about the other side,” the message is reinforced: the law is a tool, not a standard. It applies to our enemies. It does not apply to us.

A culture that no longer believes in the law is doomed to repeat the darkest moments in human history.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Banner image: Defendants in the dock at the Nuremberg Trials. Photograph by Raymond D'Addario, United States Army Signal Corps. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Endnotes

¹ Adolfo Franco biographical details: Al Jazeera contributor profile, aljazeera.com/author/adolfo-franco; Prabook, prabook.com/web/adolfo.franco/329562; LegiStorm, legistorm.com/person/bio/59052/Adolfo_A_Franco.html.

² Trump threats against Iranian civilian infrastructure reported across multiple outlets, including NBC News, PBS, and the Washington Post, 7–8 April 2026.

³ Donald J. Trump, Truth Social post, 7 April 2026, 8:06 AM.

⁴ Charter of the United Nations, signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, Article 2(4).

⁵ UN Security Council Repertoire, “Article 2(4) — Prohibition of threat or use of force in international relations,” main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/purposes-and-principles-un-chapter-i-un-charter.

⁶ International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996.

⁷ Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I), adopted 8 June 1977, Article 51(2).

⁸ Reagan administration rejection of Additional Protocol I: National Security Archive, “Humanitarian Law of War: The U.S.-NATO Review of Additional Protocol I, 1978–1986,” 21 September 2023.

⁹ Michael Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US State Department, remarks at Red Cross–American University workshop, 1987. Matheson stated: “We support the principle that the civilian population as such, as well as individual citizens, not be the object of acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among them.”

¹⁰ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted 17 July 1998, Article 25(3)(b).

¹¹ Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(i).

¹² Admiral Karl Dönitz defence at the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945–1946. See also “Trial of K Doenitz,” Judgement, International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1 October 1946, 1 IMT 171, at 310–15.

¹³ Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, interrogatory testimony submitted to the International Military Tribunal on behalf of the defence, 1946. The tribunal declined to impose a sentence on the unrestricted submarine warfare charges. See Nicole A. Heise, “Deciding Not to Decide: Nuremberg and the Ambiguous History of the Tu Quoque Defense,” 2009.

¹⁴ “Trial of Wilhelm von Leeb et al” (High Command Case), Nuremberg Military Tribunals, 1948, XI TWC, at 481.

¹⁵ “Trial of Otto Ohlendorf et al” (Einsatzgruppen Case), Nuremberg Military Tribunals, 1948, IV TWC, at 467; “Trial of Wilhelm List et al” (Hostage Case), Nuremberg Military Tribunals, 1948.

¹⁶ Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Judgement, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Case No. IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000, paras. 511, 515.

¹⁷ Firebombing of Tokyo, 9–10 March 1945 (Operation Meetinghouse). The US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated approximately 88,000 killed; the Tokyo Fire Department estimated 97,000 killed; other estimates range up to 100,000 or higher. See Britannica, “Bombing of Tokyo”; Richard B. Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999).

¹⁸ Bombing of Dresden, 13–15 February 1945. The Dresden Historians’ Commission, established by the Dresden city council in 2004, published its findings in 2010 and concluded that between 22,700 and 25,000 people were killed. See “Official report: Dresden bombing killed 25,000,” The Local (Germany), 17 March 2010.

¹⁹ Hiroshima (6 August 1945) and Nagasaki (9 August 1945). The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates 90,000–166,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 deaths in Nagasaki within the first two to four months. Combined range: 150,000–246,000. See Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), rerf.or.jp; International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), icanw.org/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_bombings.

²⁰ Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ratified by the United States on 2 August 1955.

²¹ UN General Assembly Resolution 95(I), “Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal,” 11 December 1946; “Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal,” formulated by the International Law Commission, 1950.

²² Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (Additional Protocol I), adopted 8 June 1977.

²³ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002.

²⁴ Nuremberg Tribunal, Judgment, 1 October 1946.

²⁵ US State Department, “Russia’s Attacks on Ukraine’s Energy Infrastructure,” press statement, 23 November 2022; Secretary of State Antony Blinken, remarks on Russian strikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, multiple occasions 2022–2023; US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, statement to the UN Security Council condemning Russian strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure as war crimes, 23 November 2022.

²⁶ Trump stated he was “not at all” concerned about committing war crimes. Reported in NBC News, Washington Post, and PBS, 7 April 2026.

²⁷ French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot statement reported in PBS NewsHour, 8 April 2026.

²⁸ Spokesman for UN Secretary-General António Guterres, statement reported in PBS NewsHour, 8 April 2026.

²⁹ Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s representative at the United Nations, statement reported in PBS NewsHour, 8 April 2026.

³⁰ Representative Jim McGovern, statement posted on X, reported in NBC News, 7 April 2026.

Within hours, a group called Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia — a fictitious organisation that no intelligence agency, no counter-terrorism database, and no analyst had ever encountered — claimed responsibility via Telegram. The first institutions to introduce this group to the English-speaking world were not intelligence agencies or law enforcement. They were the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a front organisation for Zionist Israeli interests, and the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, which published a report attributing a wave of European attacks to the group and linking it to Iran. Then the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague provided the assessment that gave the narrative the institutional credibility mainstream media required before repeating it. By the twenty-fourth of March, the BBC was reporting the attacks as potentially Iran-linked. The framing was set: Islamic terror had arrived in Europe.²

Then the evidence started arriving. And it did not match the story.

Five people have been arrested in connection with the Golders Green attack. Two British men, aged forty-five and forty-seven, were detained and released on bail — not charged with terrorism. Three more were arrested on the first of April: two British nationals, aged nineteen and twenty, and a seventeen-year-old dual British-Pakistani national. All were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit arson. Not one has been charged with a terrorism offence.³

The group that claimed responsibility cannot write its own name correctly in Arabic. Its communiqués misspell the word “Islamic.” Its logo changes between messages, consistent with AI generation. Its Telegram channels were created after most of the attacks they purport to claim. A Dutch professor specialising in transnational Shia militant groups examined the materials and concluded that the group’s inability to write fluent Arabic disqualifies it as a seriously organised radicalised cell.⁴

Between the ninth and the twenty-third of March, HAYI claimed responsibility for ten incidents across five countries — Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, France, and the United Kingdom. The record does not survive scrutiny. The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism — the same institution whose assessment launched the narrative into mainstream media — flagged three of the ten incidents as likely disinformation: a purported attack in Greece on the eleventh of March, and claimed attacks in France and the Netherlands on the twenty-third of March. None appear to have occurred. Of the remaining incidents, one “attack” in Antwerp turned out to be a car fire belonging to a Moroccan woman named Fatia, whose vehicle was robbed of jewellery before being set alight. A “terror plot” in the Netherlands consisted of two teenagers, aged fourteen and seventeen, found in possession of fireworks. Half of everything the group claimed either did not happen or was not what it was presented as.⁵

No law enforcement agency in any country has confirmed a link to Iran.

But here is the part that matters: no one has said so. Not with the volume, the prominence, or the urgency that accompanied the original claim. The narrative that these were acts of Islamic terror — orchestrated by Iran, executed by radicalised operatives, representing a new front in a civilisational war — entered the public bloodstream through every major news outlet in Europe. The correction, such as it exists, has been confined to specialist analysts, independent journalists, and a handful of outlets that most of the original audience will never read.

The fear was planted. The hate was seeded. And when the evidence collapsed, the institutions that amplified the claim did not retract it. They simply went quiet.

This article is about that silence. It is about what happens when media, governments, and propaganda outlets amplify a narrative of Islamic terror — and then, when the facts fall apart, choose not to correct the record. It is about who benefits from the silence, who pays for it, and why it keeps happening.

Because this is not the first time. It is not even the second.

The Anatomy of Amplification

To understand how the Golders Green arson became “Islamic terror” in the public mind, it helps to trace the claim from its origin to its destination. The journey has three stops. Each one is necessary. Without the first, the claim has no content. Without the second, it has no authority. Without the third, it has no reach. Together, they form a pipeline — and the pipeline works the same way every time.

The first stop is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

On the twelfth of March 2026 — eleven days before the Golders Green attack, but three days after a small incendiary device damaged the door of a synagogue in Liège, Belgium — Joe Truzman, a research analyst at the FDD, published a short article on the organisation’s website and its affiliated Long War Journal. It was the first English-language source to float the possibility of an Iranian link to the European incidents. The article was cautious in its language but unmistakable in its direction: “The claimed attacks could signal that Iran or Iran-aligned actors are executing acts of terrorism in Europe.”⁶

The FDD is not a neutral research institution. It was founded in 2001 with the stated mission of working to “enhance Israel’s image.” The then-Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, Sima Vaknin-Gil, publicly identified the FDD as a resource used by the Israeli government, telling a conference in 2018: “We have FDD. We have others working on this.” The FDD’s analysis of the European attacks gained limited traction on its own — picked up by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on social media and a handful of niche pro-Israel outlets, but not by mainstream media. A front organisation for Israeli interests asserting an Iran link was not, by itself, newsworthy. The claim needed institutional weight.⁷

It got it four days later, from the second stop: Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism.

On the sixteenth of March, the Ministry published a special report formally attributing the European attacks to Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia and linking the group to Iranian terror networks. The report was detailed, branded with the authority of a government ministry, and distributed through diplomatic and media channels. It provided the framework that almost all subsequent English-language coverage would adopt: a new Iranian proxy group was conducting hybrid warfare operations against Jewish targets across Europe.⁸

The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs is not a disinterested observer. Following the downgrading of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, the Diaspora Ministry absorbed Israel’s international propaganda operations. Minister Amichai Chikli’s department relaunched the former Concert project as “Voices of Israel” after October 2023, directing it to go “on the offensive” against critics. The Ministry has allocated millions to covert social media campaigns, campus operations, and overseas cutouts designed to evade foreign-agent scrutiny. When this Ministry publishes a report attributing attacks to an Iranian proxy, it is not performing intelligence analysis. It is performing a communications function — providing the raw material for a narrative that serves Israeli strategic interests.⁹

But even a government report from an allied state is not sufficient to move the BBC. For that, the claim needed its third stop: an institution that Western media would treat as independent.

On the twenty-third of March — the same day as the Golders Green attack — the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague published an assessment titled “Hybrid Threat Signals: Assessing Possible Iranian Involvement in Recent Attacks in Europe.” The ICCT receives core funding from the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and lists NATO, the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs, USAID, and RUSI Europe among its partners. Its assessment was more cautious than the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs’ report — it flagged linguistic errors in the group’s materials, noted that several claimed attacks were likely disinformation, and acknowledged the amateurism of the incidents. But its headline framing — “Assessing Possible Iranian Involvement” — was enough. Within twenty-four hours, the BBC, Fox News, and outlets across Europe were reporting the attacks through the lens the pipeline had constructed: a shadowy new Iranian-backed terror group was targeting Jews in Europe.¹⁰

Three sources. A front organization with documented ties to the Israeli government. A foreign government’s propaganda ministry running covert influence operations across multiple continents. And a Western-funded counter-terrorism institute whose junior researcher’s career runs through Zionist-linked organisations. This is not analysis. It is a PsyOp — a fabrication manufactured in one country’s strategic interests, laundered through successive institutions until it arrived on the desks of Western journalists looking indistinguishable from independent assessment.

This is how narratives are built. The FDD needs the threat narrative to justify its existence. The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs needs it to support IRGC proscription campaigns. The ICCT needs it to demonstrate relevance to its government funders. And the journalists at the end of the chain need a story — preferably one that arrives with enough institutional backing that they can report it without doing the verification themselves.

Someone in that chain knew what they were selling. The rest chose not to ask. And when the evidence began to contradict the narrative, no one in the chain issued a correction. Because the pipeline only flows in one direction.

Share

What Was Said and What Was Not

The communiqué that Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia published claiming responsibility for the Golders Green attack contains a passage that should have stopped every newsroom in Europe. It reads, in part: the Machzike Hadath Synagogue is “one of the important centers of Orthodox Judaism,” connected to Israel through “Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel and one of the most influential thinkers of Religious Zionism, who served at this synagogue before immigrating to the Land of Israel.”¹¹

Read that again. “The Land of Israel.” That is not a phrase used by Iranian operatives. It is not a phrase used by any Shia militia. It is not a phrase used by anyone in the Axis of Resistance. “The Land of Israel” — Eretz Yisrael — is a Zionist formulation. It is the vocabulary of Israeli nationalism, of Religious Zionism specifically, and of the settler movement. No Iranian proxy would use it. No Arabic-speaking militant group would use it. The phrase identifies the author as surely as a fingerprint.¹²

The communiqué also uses the American spelling of “center” rather than the British “centre” — despite purporting to describe a target in London. It demonstrates detailed insider knowledge of Rabbi Kook’s historical connection to the synagogue — a connection unlikely to be known by anyone outside the congregation or those with close familiarity with the institution’s history. And it describes the Machzike Hadath Synagogue as “one of the main bastions of support for Israel in Britain” — a claim that is not remotely true. The synagogue is a member of the Federation of Synagogues, a body gathering Hasidic and central-orthodox congregations. It is not an explicitly Zionist institution. There are hundreds of organisations in Britain with far stronger and more visible ties to the Israeli state. The communiqué reads like it was written by someone who knows the synagogue intimately but does not know how to pretend to be its enemy convincingly.¹³

These are not minor discrepancies. They are the kind of details that any competent journalist, any intelligence analyst, any counter-terrorism professional would notice — if they were looking. The BBC reported the Iran-linked framing on the twenty-fourth of March. Not one of these details appeared in the coverage. Fox News ran a feature on the “new terror group.” Not one of these details appeared. The broadsheets, the tabloids, the evening bulletins — all carried the story. None carried the evidence that contradicted it.

The silence extends beyond the media.

The Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism unit is leading the investigation. Five people have been arrested. Two were bailed. Three more were detained on the first of April. The charge is conspiracy to commit arson — not terrorism. The Met has not publicly stated whether the HAYI claim is considered credible. It has not publicly stated whether any link to Iran has been established or ruled out. It has issued careful, procedural updates about arrests and community reassurance. What it has not done is say the single sentence that the evidence demands: there is no confirmed connection between this attack and any Islamic terror group.¹⁴

The British government has not said it either. The Prime Minister called it a “deeply shocking antisemitic arson attack.” He was right. But in the vacuum left by institutional silence, the narrative that this was Islamic terror — Iranian-directed, religiously motivated, part of a coordinated campaign — remains the dominant public understanding. The people who read the original headlines have not been told that the group claiming responsibility appears to be fictional. The people who felt the fear have not been told that the evidence points away from Islamic extremism, not toward it.¹⁵

This is the accountability failure at the heart of this article. It is not that institutions got it wrong in the heat of the moment — early reporting is always provisional. It is that when the evidence arrived, when the arrests were made, when the analysts flagged the disinformation, when the communiqué’s language gave the game away — the institutions that amplified the original claim chose silence. The BBC did not update its reporting. The politicians did not qualify their statements. The propagandists of course did not revise their assessments. The fear was left to do its work undisturbed.

And the people who pay for that silence are the ones who always pay: Muslim communities who inherit the blame for an attack they had nothing to do with, and Jewish communities who inherit a fear that has been deliberately manufactured and deliberately sustained.

The Pattern

If the Golders Green case were an isolated incident — a single attack, a single false claim, a single failure to correct — it might be explained as the fog of a crisis moment. Newsrooms move fast. Governments react before investigations conclude. Mistakes happen.

But this is not an isolated incident. The same pattern — fabricated claims of Islamic or antisemitic terror, instantaneous amplification, and a correction that never arrives with the same force as the original narrative — has repeated across three continents in less than a decade. Each time, the machinery works the same way. Each time, the silence afterward is the same.

In early 2017, a wave of more than two thousand bomb threats struck Jewish Community Centres across the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Schools were evacuated. Communities were terrified. Fighter jets were scrambled. The story dominated the news cycle for weeks. Politicians condemned the attacks. Commentators speculated about a coordinated antisemitic campaign. Some attributed the threats to the rise of right-wing populism under the new Trump presidency. Others pointed the finger at Islamic extremism. The threats were covered, overwhelmingly, as evidence of a rising tide of ideological hatred — and for Muslim communities in a country already deep into the War on Terror’s second decade, the implication was familiar and dangerous.¹⁶

Two people were eventually arrested. The first was Juan Thompson, a disgraced former journalist who had been fired from The Intercept for fabricating quotes. Thompson had made at least twelve of the threats — not out of antisemitism, but as part of a campaign to frame his ex-girlfriend. He pleaded guilty to cyberstalking and making hoax bomb threats and was sentenced to five years in prison. The second was Michael Ron David Kadar, a dual American-Israeli citizen living in Ashkelon, Israel, who was responsible for the vast majority of the threats. Kadar had been rejected from enlistment in the Israel Defence Forces due to mental health issues. According to Israeli police, he had used advanced technologies to disguise his voice and mask the origin of his calls. He had also advertised a service on the dark web offering to threaten any school for thirty dollars. He was convicted on hundreds of counts and sentenced to ten years. His motive, according to investigators, was boredom.¹⁷

Neither perpetrator was Muslim. Neither was motivated by Islamic extremism. Neither had any connection to any terror group. A disgraced journalist stalking his ex-girlfriend and a teenager in Israel acting out of boredom — these were the authors of a “wave of antisemitic terror” that shaped political discourse across multiple countries for months.

The correction, when it came, received a fraction of the coverage the threats had generated. The politicians who had condemned the attacks did not return to the microphones to note that the perpetrators were not who the public had been led to imagine. The commentators who had built segments around the threat did not revisit their analysis. The fear — and the political utility of that fear — remained undisturbed.¹⁸

Seven years later, the pattern repeated in Australia.

Between late 2024 and early 2025, Jewish communities in Sydney and Melbourne were subjected to months of escalating attacks. Synagogues were firebombed. A childcare centre near a Jewish school was set alight. Vehicles and homes of community leaders were vandalised with antisemitic graffiti. A caravan packed with explosives was discovered on the outskirts of Sydney, containing a list of Jewish targets. Politicians described the situation as an unprecedented national crisis. The Prime Minister called the caravan discovery an act of terrorism. New South Wales and the federal government invoked the attacks to pass sweeping hate speech legislation targeting, in practice, opponents of the war in Gaza. The head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation warned that the attacks had “not yet plateaued.”¹⁹

On the tenth of March 2025, the Australian Federal Police held a press conference and dismantled the entire narrative.

The caravan plot was a hoax — fabricated by an organised crime network. The explosives were forty years old. There was no detonator. The caravan had been deliberately placed where it would be easily found. The criminals behind it intended to tip off police and then leverage the information to bargain for reduced sentences in unrelated proceedings. The wave of arsons and graffiti attacks that had terrorised Jewish communities for months had been carried out by the same network — petty criminals hired and paid by an offshore figure, not one of them ideologically motivated. The AFP’s deputy commissioner called it “a criminal con job.”²⁰

Not a single perpetrator was Muslim. Not a single attack was motivated by Islamic extremism. The entire wave — every firebombing, every piece of graffiti, every terrifying headline — had been manufactured by criminals for money.

The correction was devastating in its implications. The legislation that had been passed on the back of the fear was already law. The public perception that Australian Jews were under siege from Islamic or pro-Palestinian extremism had already calcified. The politicians who had invoked the attacks did not return to Parliament to acknowledge that the evidentiary basis for their laws had collapsed. The media outlets that had covered the crisis daily for months did not run the correction with anything approaching the same intensity. And six months later, the Australian government pivoted to blaming Iran — despite the fact that the charges filed against the perpetrators make no mention of Iranian involvement and the NSW Police confirmed they had no information connecting Iran to the attacks.²¹

Three continents. Three waves of fabricated or misattributed threats against Jewish communities. In every case, the amplification was instantaneous — politicians, media, propaganda outlets, all moving in lockstep to frame the incidents as evidence of a coordinated ideological threat. In every case, the perpetrators turned out to be something entirely different from what the public was told. And in every case, the correction was buried — not retracted, not amplified, not given the prominence the original claim received. Simply allowed to die in the specialist press while the fear lived on in the public mind.

These are the cases documented in this article. They are not the only ones. The pattern repeats more often than most people realise — because the corrections never reach the audience that absorbed the fear. The lie is the headline. The truth is the footnote. And the footnote does not trend.

This is not a coincidence. It is a pattern. And the pattern has a beneficiary.

Share

The Industry That Feeds

The question that every case in the previous section demands is not how the correction failed to arrive. The mechanics are straightforward: a retraction gets less airtime than the original claim, a correction runs on page twelve, an update is published without the headline that accompanied the accusation. The question is why. Why does the same pattern repeat? Why do the same institutions amplify the same kind of claim, from the same kind of sources, and then fall silent when the claim collapses? Why does no one learn?

The answer is that the silence is not a failure. It is a feature. There is an industry that depends on the perception of an Islamic threat — and that industry cannot afford corrections.

In 2011, the Center for American Progress published a report called “Fear, Inc.” that mapped, for the first time, the counter-Islam network in the United States as a traceable system: identifiable organisations, documented funding streams, and a pipeline that runs from think tank to media to legislation. What the researchers found was not a conspiracy. It was something more effective — a small, tightly connected group of organisations funded by a handful of foundations, whose manufactured claims about Islam were amplified through conservative media and converted into policy by sympathetic legislators. Seven foundations spent $42.6 million between 2001 and 2009 funding the intellectual core of this network. By 2014, the inner core organisations alone had access to at least $119.6 million in total revenue.²²

This is the machinery that makes the silence possible. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies — the same organisation that first floated the Iran link for the European attacks — is a node in this network. It was founded to “enhance Israel’s image.” Its analysis serves Israeli strategic interests. When it publishes a report attributing attacks to an Iranian proxy, it is not performing journalism or intelligence work. It is feeding raw material into a pipeline that converts fear of Islam into policy outcomes — in this case, the proscription of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation across Europe, a goal that pro-Israel lobbying networks have pursued for years.²³

The propaganda outlets need the threat narrative to justify their funding. The media figures who amplify the narrative need it to sustain their audience. The politicians who legislate on the back of it need it to justify the laws they have already passed. And the governments that have committed to the narrative — whether through IRGC proscription in Europe or hate speech legislation in Australia — need it to avoid the admission that they acted on fabricated evidence.

This is why the correction never comes. It is not that journalists are lazy, or that politicians are forgetful, or that these organisations make honest mistakes. It is that every institution in the chain has a structural incentive to leave the lie undisturbed. A retraction would require the BBC to admit it amplified an unverified claim from a foreign government’s propaganda ministry. It would require the Australian government to admit it passed laws on the basis of a criminal hoax. It would require the FDD to admit that its analysis served a geopolitical agenda rather than an analytical one. It would require the ICCT to admit that its assessment gave institutional cover to a PsyOp.

None of them will do this voluntarily. And so the fear remains.

The counter-Islam industry — documented in detail in “Antisemitism and Counter-Islamism: The Industry,” published on this platform — is not a fringe operation. It is a funded, staffed, transatlantic network with a product. The product is fear of Islam. The market for that product is Western public opinion. And the silence that follows every debunked claim is not an accident. It is inventory management. Every correction that fails to reach the public is a unit of fear that remains in circulation — available to be drawn on the next time a politician needs a threat, a think tank needs a grant, or a government needs a war.²⁴

The result is a ratchet. Each fabricated claim that goes uncorrected raises the baseline of public fear. Each unchallenged attribution of violence to Islamic extremism makes the next attribution easier to sell. The audience does not remember the correction that never came. It remembers the headline. And the headline always says the same thing.

Muslims inherit the blame for attacks they did not commit. Jews inherit the fear from threats that were manufactured. And the industry that profits from both — the propaganda outlets, the media amplifiers, the politicians, the defence contractors, the surveillance firms — faces no accountability for any of it.

The industry does not fight hate. It farms it. And the silence after the lie is the harvest.

The Accountability Gap

Accountability, in this context, is not a philosophical abstraction. It is a list of specific things that specific institutions have failed to do — and could do tomorrow.

The BBC reported the Golders Green attack through the lens of a potentially Iran-linked terror campaign. The source of that framing was a pipeline that began with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — a front organisation for Zionist Israeli interests — passed through the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, which runs covert influence operations across multiple continents, and arrived at the BBC’s newsroom laundered through a Western-funded counter-terrorism institute. The BBC did not report this provenance. It did not tell its audience that the narrative originated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. It did not note that the group claiming responsibility could not write its own name correctly in Arabic, that its communiqués used Zionist vocabulary no Iranian proxy would use, or that half the incidents the group claimed were fabricated. It reported a PsyOp as analysis. It owes its audience a correction — not buried in a follow-up, not phrased as “questions have been raised,” but with the same prominence and the same certainty with which the original framing was delivered.²⁵

The Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism unit is leading the investigation. It has issued procedural updates about arrests and community reassurance. It has not issued a public statement addressing whether the HAYI claim is considered credible. In the absence of that statement, the narrative that this was an act of Islamic terror stands unchallenged in the public record. The Met does not owe the public a conclusion before the investigation is complete. It does owe the public a single, clear sentence: no link to any Islamic terror group has been established. If that sentence is true — and the evidence strongly suggests it is — then the failure to say it is a choice to let the lie stand.²⁶

The British government called the attack “deeply shocking” and “antisemitic.” Both descriptions are accurate. But the Prime Minister did not qualify his statement when the arrests revealed that the suspects were not Islamic extremists. He did not address the fabricated claim of responsibility. He did not note that the narrative of Iranian-directed terror had no confirmed evidentiary basis. In the political climate of a war with Iran, the failure to clarify is not neutral. It is a contribution to the atmosphere that makes the next fabrication easier to believe.²⁷

The European governments that have accelerated IRGC proscription campaigns in the wake of these incidents owe an accounting of the evidentiary basis for those decisions. If the attacks attributed to HAYI formed part of the justification — and the timing strongly suggests they did — then the fact that half the claimed incidents were fabricated and the rest were carried out by teenagers and petty criminals is not a footnote. It is a challenge to the integrity of the policy itself.²⁸

The propagandists — the FDD, the ICCT, the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs — will not correct the record. They were never in the business of accuracy. Their assessments were not mistakes to be revised. They were operations to be executed. And they were executed successfully. The narrative is in the bloodstream. The fear is doing its work. The mission is accomplished.

But the media are not propagandists. Or at least they claim not to be. The BBC, the broadsheets, the evening bulletins — these are institutions that present themselves as bound by editorial standards, by obligations to accuracy, by a duty to their audience. They are not supposed to pass unverified claims from a foreign government’s influence operation directly to the public and then walk away when the claims collapse. If a person yells fire in a crowded theatre and there is no fire, they are arrested. If a news organisation amplifies a fabricated claim of Islamic terror to millions of people through algorithmic distribution, generates fear, fuels hatred, and shapes government policy — and then the claim turns out to be false — they face no consequence whatsoever. No obligation to reach the same audience with the correction. No requirement to match the prominence of the retraction to the prominence of the original claim. No accountability for the hate crimes, the legislation, and the foreign policy decisions that their unchecked amplification helped to produce.

This is the accountability gap. Not that propagandists propagandise — that is what they do. But that the media organisations and governments that are supposed to stand between a PsyOp and the public failed to do so, profited from the failure, and face no requirement to repair the damage. A foreign influence operation was played on our nations. The public deserves to know. And the institutions that served as its delivery mechanism owe more than silence.

This article is that demand.

The evidence documented in this article leads to a conclusion that no mainstream outlet will state, so I will state it here: what happened in Golders Green — and in Belgium, and in the Netherlands, and in the pattern that stretches back through Australia and the United States — is not Islamic terror. It is Israeli terror.

Not terror with bombs or bullets. Terror with narrative. A front organisation for Zionist Israeli interests manufactured a fictitious Islamic extremist group. The Israeli government amplified it, attributed a wave of attacks to it, and fed that attribution through a pipeline of institutional laundering until it reached the front pages of every major news outlet in Europe. The result was not the defeat of Iran or the protection of Jewish communities. The result was Muslim communities blamed for attacks they did not commit, and Jewish communities in the diaspora left more frightened, more isolated, and more dependent on the very state apparatus that manufactured their fear.

This is what the operation achieved. Jewish families in Golders Green are afraid to walk to synagogue — not because of Islamic extremism, but because an Israeli influence operation made them believe Islamic extremism was at their door. Muslim families in the same neighbourhood carry the weight of a lie that was designed, from its inception, to fall on them. Both communities are victims. Neither is the beneficiary. The beneficiary is an industry — and a state — that needs the fear to continue.

The hate is not reinforced by the fire. It is reinforced by the silence after the lie. And the silence is not an accident. It is the product.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

This article was updated on 21 April 2026 to correct the attribution in the closing section. The original text attributed the manufacture of the fictitious group to the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. The corrected text distinguishes between the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which first introduced the group, and the Ministry, which amplified and formalised the attribution.

Article Image: CCTV footage released by Metropolitan Police

Endnotes

¹ Metropolitan Police statement, 23 March 2026; Hatzola Northwest; “Jewish volunteer ambulances fire Golders Green suspected arson antisemitic,” The Guardian, 23 March 2026.

² Foundation for Defense of Democracies / Long War Journal, Joe Truzman, 12 March 2026; Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, “Special Report: Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia,” 16 March 2026 (updated 24 March 2026); International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), “Hybrid Threat Signals: Assessing Possible Iranian Involvement in Recent Attacks in Europe,” 23 March 2026; BBC News, 24 March 2026.

³ Metropolitan Police, “Further arrests made in Golders Green arson investigation,” 1 April 2026; Metropolitan Police statement, 25 March 2026 (initial arrests). Ages, nationalities, and charge details per Met Police statements.

⁴ ICCT, “Hybrid Threat Signals,” 23 March 2026 (linguistic errors); The Grayzone, “Who’s Behind the Mysterious ‘Iran-Backed Terror Cell’ Haunting Europe?”, 28 March 2026 (Dutch professor, logo inconsistencies); Washington Examiner, “The emerging terrorist group claiming attacks across Europe,” 24 March 2026 (ICCT quotation on misspelling and amateurism).

⁵ ICCT, “Hybrid Threat Signals,” 23 March 2026 (Greece, France, and Netherlands claims flagged as likely disinformation); HLN / Nieuwsblad (Antwerp car owner identified as Fatia M., Moroccan national); NL Times, 23 March 2026 (Heemstede arrests, teenagers with fireworks); Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, “Special Report,” 16 March 2026 (acknowledged Greece incident “may constitute disinformation” and Heemstede connection unconfirmed).

⁶ Joe Truzman, “Purported Iran-backed group claims responsibility for attacks in Belgium and Greece,” Long War Journal / Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 12 March 2026.

⁷ FDD founding mission: see “Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” Wikipedia; Sima Vaknin-Gil quoted in Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2018.

⁸ Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, “Special Report: Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia,” 16 March 2026 (updated 24 March 2026). Available at gov.il.

⁹ Ministry of Diaspora Affairs absorption of hasbara operations: The Guardian, “Israel fund US university protest Gaza antisemitism,” 24 June 2024; “Voices of Israel” relaunch: Al Mayadeen English; covert social media campaigns: New York Times, “Israel campaign Gaza social media,” 5 June 2024; campus operations funding: Peace Now.

¹⁰ ICCT, “Hybrid Threat Signals: Assessing Possible Iranian Involvement in Recent Attacks in Europe,” 23 March 2026; BBC News coverage, 24 March 2026; Fox News, “Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyya: What to know about new terror group,” March 2026; ICCT funding and partners listed on icct.nl/about.

¹¹ HAYI communiqué on the Golders Green attack, circulated via Telegram, 23 March 2026. Text reproduced and analysed in The Grayzone, Wyatt Reed, “Who’s Behind the Mysterious ‘Iran-Backed Terror Cell’ Haunting Europe?”, 28 March 2026.

¹² “The Land of Israel” (Eretz Yisrael) as Zionist terminology: see analysis in The Grayzone, 28 March 2026. The phrase is standard in Religious Zionist discourse and Israeli nationalist vocabulary. It does not appear in the lexicon of Iranian proxy groups, Shia militias, or Axis of Resistance communications.

¹³ American spelling and insider knowledge of Rabbi Kook’s connection to the synagogue: HAYI communiqué, circulated via Telegram, 23 March 2026. The communiqué’s description of Machzike Hadath as “one of the main bastions of support for Israel in Britain” is not supported by the evidence — the synagogue is a member of the Federation of Synagogues (federation.org.uk), a body gathering Hasidic and central-orthodox congregations, and is not an explicitly Zionist institution. The discrepancies in vocabulary, spelling, and insider knowledge have been independently noted by multiple analysts.

¹⁴ Metropolitan Police statements, 25 March and 1 April 2026. Charge details: conspiracy to commit arson with intent to endanger life. No terrorism charges have been filed against any suspect as of 2 April 2026.

¹⁵ Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s statement on the Golders Green attack, 23 March 2026.

¹⁶ “2017 Jewish Community Center bomb threats,” Wikipedia; Anti-Defamation League reports on JCC threats, January–March 2017; media coverage compiled in Newsweek, “In College, Bomb Threat Suspect Juan Thompson Had…,” 10 March 2017.

¹⁷ Juan Thompson: United States Department of Justice, Southern District of New York, sentencing statement, 20 December 2017; United States Secret Service press release, 20 December 2017. Michael Ron David Kadar: “2017 Jewish Community Center bomb threats,” Wikipedia; Israeli police statements; Israeli court conviction, June 2018.

¹⁸ Media coverage disparity between the original threats and the subsequent arrests and convictions is documented in the coverage archives of ABC News, CBS News, and Haaretz, all of which covered the arrests but with significantly less prominence than the original threat reporting.

¹⁹ Australian Federal Police, Deputy Commissioner Krissy Barrett, statement on Operation Kissinger, 10 March 2025; CBS News, “Australia police say seemingly antisemitic terrorism incidents were really ‘criminal con job,’” 10 March 2025; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Antisemitic terror plot in Australia was fake and staged by a crime boss, police say,” 11 March 2025; ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess, annual threat assessment, February 2025.

²⁰ AFP Deputy Commissioner Barrett, 10 March 2025: “The caravan was never going to cause a mass casualty event but instead was concocted by criminals who wanted to cause fear for personal benefit.” NBC News, “Explosives-filled caravan was planted by criminals to play on fears of antisemitic attacks,” 11 March 2025; Al Jazeera, “Mob faked attack on Australian synagogue: Police,” 10 March 2025.

²¹ Post-correction political response: World Socialist Web Site, “Australian Labor government accuses Iran of ‘antisemitic’ attacks to justify Trump’s criminal war,” 4 March 2026 (documenting the pivot to Iranian attribution six months after the hoax admission); NSW Police confirmation of no Iranian connection to the Lewis’ Continental Kitchen attack; charges filed against perpetrators reference arson and criminal damage, not terrorism or foreign interference.

²² Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir, “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” Center for American Progress, 26 August 2011; Corey Saylor, “The U.S. Islamophobia Network: Its Funding and Impact,” Council on American-Islamic Relations, April 2014 ($119.6 million figure).

²³ FDD founding mission and Israeli government ties: see “Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” Wikipedia; Sima Vaknin-Gil, Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, quoted in Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2018. IRGC proscription campaigns: documented across European parliamentary debates and lobbying disclosures, 2023–2026.

²⁴ James S. Coates, “Antisemitism and Counter-Islamism: The Industry,” Fireline Press, 2026. The article provides a comprehensive mapping of the counter-Islam network’s funding, personnel, and policy pipeline across the United States and the United Kingdom.

²⁵ BBC News coverage of Golders Green attack, 24 March 2026. No subsequent correction or update reflecting the absence of a confirmed Iran link has been published as of 2 April 2026.

²⁶ Metropolitan Police statements, 25 March and 1 April 2026. No public statement addressing the credibility of the HAYI claim has been issued as of 2 April 2026.

²⁷ Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s statement on the Golders Green attack, 23 March 2026. No subsequent qualification or update has been issued.

²⁸ European IRGC proscription timeline: the European Union formally designated the IRGC in March 2026; the campaign to achieve this designation predates the HAYI incidents but was accelerated by them. See ICCT, “Hybrid Threat Signals,” 23 March 2026; European Council statements, March 2026.

This was not merely an act of aggression against Iran. It was a betrayal — of the Iranian people who had come to the table, of the constitutional system that reserves the power of war to Congress, of the international legal order that the United States itself authored, of the American people in whose name these acts were committed, and of every allied nation in the region now absorbing the direct consequences of a war they did not choose: the Gulf states managing missile threats and refugee flows, the economies destabilised by the disruption of energy markets, and the nations beyond the Middle East contending with the ripple effects of a conflict that was launched while diplomacy was winning.

But law alone has never stopped a war that enough people wanted. Millions of Americans were primed for decades to support this one, and they have reasons — or at least they believe they do. The nuclear threat. The theological mandate. The media narrative. The political calculation. Four arguments, each carrying enough surface plausibility to survive a cable news segment, each repeated often enough to feel self-evident.

This article takes each on its own terms.

Share

The Nuclear Threat

The nuclear argument — which Netanyahu has been pushing for decades, since before Iran even had a civilian nuclear programme — suggests that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, diplomacy had failed, and military action was the only remaining option to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. It sounds reasonable. It is also circular, and the circularity is the argument’s fatal defect.

In 2015, the United States and five other world powers negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the JCPOA, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. The agreement constrained Iran’s nuclear programme with a specificity that no military strike could match. Iran agreed to reduce its operating centrifuges by two-thirds. It accepted limits on uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent — far below the roughly 90 percent needed for a weapon. It capped its stockpile of low-enriched uranium at 300 kilograms. It redesigned the Arak heavy water reactor to close the plutonium pathway to a bomb. And it submitted to the most intrusive verification regime in the history of nuclear diplomacy, granting the International Atomic Energy Agency access to monitor compliance at every stage.⁵⁹

The JCPOA was not perfect. Critics pointed to sunset provisions — limits on centrifuges that would expire after ten years, enrichment caps after fifteen. These were legitimate concerns. But the verification regime had no sunset. And the deal’s core achievement was measurable: under the JCPOA, Iran’s breakout time — the time needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single bomb — was extended to over one year. That year was not a guarantee of safety. It was a window — a window for detection, for diplomacy, for response. It was the difference between a programme that could be monitored and one that could not.⁶⁰

On the eighth of May 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA.⁶¹

He did so while Iran was in compliance. The IAEA had confirmed it in every report since the deal’s implementation. Trump’s own Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, acknowledged that the IAEA had found no evidence of non-compliance. General Joseph Dunford, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress in September 2017 that “Iran is adhering to its JCPOA obligations” and that the agreement “has delayed Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.”⁶² The intelligence community agreed. The inspectors agreed. The military agreed. The President withdrew anyway.

What followed was predictable, because it was predicted. Within fourteen months of the withdrawal, Iran had exceeded its enrichment limits. It began producing uranium at 4.5 percent, then 20 percent, then 60 percent. It installed advanced centrifuges the deal had prohibited. It restricted IAEA inspector access. By the time the IAEA issued its November 2024 report, Iran’s breakout time had collapsed from over one year to approximately one week.⁶³

Let the arithmetic speak. The deal constrained the programme. The withdrawal removed the constraints. The programme expanded. And the expansion of the programme is now cited as the justification for bombing it.

This is not an argument. It is a circle. The administration that created the conditions for Iran’s nuclear advancement now presents that advancement as the reason the war was necessary. It is like a man who burns down the fire station and then points to the ashes as proof that the neighbourhood needs better fire protection.

Laura Rockwood, who spent twenty-eight years at the IAEA and now serves as a senior fellow at the Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, stated it plainly: Iran’s nuclear advancement occurred “not because of the JCPOA, but because President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA.” Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University who worked as a special envoy for Iran under the Biden administration, confirmed: “Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in 2018 had a significant accelerating effect on the program.”⁶⁴

But the circularity is only half the indictment. The other half is the negotiations.

As documented in Part One, on the twenty-fifth of February 2026, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated publicly that a deal to avert military conflict was “within reach.” On the twenty-seventh of February — one day before the strikes — Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi appeared on CBS News and disclosed that Iran had agreed to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium, irreversible downgrading of existing stockpiles, and full IAEA verification. He called it “a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved in previous rounds of negotiations.”⁶⁵ This was not the JCPOA being reheated. This was a commitment that went beyond what the JCPOA had secured.

The President had a diplomatic victory on the table — his own diplomatic victory, achieved through his own administration’s negotiations, mediated by an ally he himself had engaged. He chose war. The strikes began on the twenty-eighth of February. The additional talks scheduled for the following Monday in Vienna never took place.

The nuclear argument for this war does not merely fail. It collapses into its own contradiction. The man who abandoned the deal that constrained the programme, who watched the programme expand as a direct and predicted consequence of that abandonment, who then had a second deal on the table that went further than the first — that man chose to bomb what diplomacy had already solved, twice, and asks us to believe there was no alternative.

There was an alternative. He was looking at it. And he turned away.

Which means the nuclear threat was never the reason. If preventing a nuclear-armed Iran were the genuine objective, then Iran’s agreement to zero stockpiling and full IAEA verification — disclosed on American television the day before the strikes — would have ended the conversation. The problem would have been solved. The bombs would have been unnecessary. But the bombs fell anyway, because the nuclear argument was the justification, not the cause. Oman’s foreign minister, the man who had spent weeks mediating between the two sides, confirmed as much after the war began: the strikes were not prompted by an imminent threat but were “solely an attempt to reorder the Middle East in Israel’s favour.”⁸⁹

The nuclear threat was the label on the box. What was inside was something else entirely.

The Faith-Based Justification

In my article “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” published on the eighteenth of March, I documented the infrastructure that made this war legible — even desirable — to tens of millions of Americans.⁶⁶ The dispensationalist theology that reads Middle Eastern conflict as biblical prophecy unfolding in real time. The Pentagon prayer services. The commanders who told their troops, with grins on their faces, that Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon.” The two hundred complaints across every branch of the military. I will not repeat that documentation here. Read it if you have not. It matters.

What I want to examine here is the specific theological narrative that the Iran war has activated — a narrative that goes beyond generic dispensationalism into something with a name, a history, and a political function. It is called the Cyrus narrative. And it is doing more work in this war than most Americans realise.

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire — the first Persian Empire. In 539 BCE, he conquered Babylon and issued a decree permitting the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. For this, he is celebrated in Jewish tradition and is the only non-Jewish figure described as a messiah — an anointed one — in the Hebrew Bible. Isaiah 45:1 reads: “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him.”⁶⁷

In 2015, a charismatic preacher named Lance Wallnau took that verse and built a political theology around it. Wallnau, a figure in the New Apostolic Reformation who presents more like an infomercial pitchman than a holy man, published a book positioning Donald Trump as “God’s Chaos Candidate” — an unlikely, irreligious ruler chosen by God, just as Cyrus was, to advance the divine plan. The parallel was deliberate: Cyrus was not Jewish, not devout, not particularly interested in theology. He was a conqueror who happened to serve God’s purposes. Trump, in this framework, is the same — a flawed vessel through whom prophecy moves.⁶⁸

The narrative caught fire. Benjamin Netanyahu compared Trump to Cyrus at multiple public events beginning in 2018, after Trump moved the American embassy to Jerusalem.⁶⁹ Evangelical leaders adopted the framing with enthusiasm. Roughly a third of white evangelicals told pollsters they believed Trump’s election reflected God’s will.⁷⁰ And in January 2026, as the war loomed, even Reza Pahlavi — the exiled crown prince of Iran — invoked the “Time of Cyrus” alongside the “Time of Trump,” envisioning a transformative alliance that would reshape the Middle East.⁷¹

The irony should not be lost. Trump is being cast as a Cyrus figure — a Persian king, the founder of the civilisation whose modern inheritor he is currently bombing. The theology that celebrates Cyrus as God’s instrument for the liberation of the Jews is being used to justify the destruction of the nation Cyrus built.

But irony is the least of the problems. The real problem is what happens when this narrative meets the machinery of war.

In the first week of the Iran strikes, the FlashPoint television programme — a major platform for charismatic evangelical media — broadcast a series of episodes that treated the war as eschatological vindication. Wallnau declared that because of Trump’s war on Iran, “Israel and the return of Jesus is back on the menu.” He called it a “Last Days-moment” with “Cyrus Trump leading the greatest gentile nation in history.” Lorenzo Sewell, a Detroit pastor who delivered a prayer at Trump’s inauguration, called Trump “our modern day Cyrus” and said the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader had turned spiritual warfare literal: “That which people have been doing in the spirit, we saw it manifest in the natural.” He celebrated the killing of another human being by spending the day in the West Wing, mingling with the president’s advisers, telling his audience he could see “the angels surrounding” the Secretary of State.⁷²

This is not fringe theology confined to anonymous social media accounts. This is broadcast media, with direct access to the White House, celebrating the killing of a head of state as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy — and doing so while thirteen American families are burying their dead.

And then there is the projection.

On the fourth of March 2026, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told the press that “crazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent on prophetic Islamic delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons.”⁷³ This from the man who has held monthly Christian worship services in the Pentagon since May 2025. The man whose personal mentor advocates Christian theocracy. The man whose commanders told troops the war was God’s divine plan to spark Armageddon. The man who declared at the National Prayer Breakfast that military service earns eternal life.

Hegseth accused Iran of being driven by religious delusion while presiding over a Pentagon where religious delusion was being broadcast on the department’s internal television network, posted on its official social media accounts, and preached from its podium. The accusation is not ironic. It is diagnostic. It tells you what the accuser sees when he looks in the mirror — and what he refuses to recognise as his own reflection.

The First Amendment is clear. The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1797, states that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”⁷⁴ These are not obscure historical footnotes. They are the foundational commitments of the republic in whose name this war is being fought. When foreign policy is driven by eschatology — when the decision to bomb a sovereign nation is legible to the decision-makers as the advancement of God’s prophetic timeline rather than a strategic calculation subject to rational scrutiny — it is not Iran that has a theocracy problem. It is the Pentagon.

The Media Narrative

Ask an American what Iran is and you will get one of a handful of answers. The ayatollahs. The hostage crisis. The nuclear programme. Terrorism. “Death to America.” A monolith — dark, fanatical, implacable. A nation whose more than ninety million people have been compressed into a single image: the bearded cleric, the burning flag, the chanting crowd.

There is no Iranian civil society in this picture. No women who risked their lives in the streets. No students who wrote on their university walls that the system had “taken our future hostage for forty-seven years.”⁷⁵ No poets. No filmmakers. No reformists who won elections and tried to open the country from within.

And no acknowledgment that those reformists were crushed, again and again, not only by the hardliners in Tehran but by American policy that handed those hardliners their best arguments. When George W. Bush declared Iran part of the “Axis of Evil” in January 2002, President Mohammad Khatami’s reformist government was in the middle of the most significant opening in Iranian politics since the revolution. The reformists were reaching out. They were met with a label that empowered every hardliner who had warned that America would never accept a moderate Iran.⁹⁰ The pattern has repeated for decades: every time Iranian civil society moves toward openness, American policy delivers a gift to the forces that want to shut it down.

No Mahsa Amini — the twenty-two-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman whose death in the custody of Iran’s morality police in September 2022 sparked the largest anti-regime uprising since the revolution, and whose name became synonymous with a movement the world briefly noticed and then forgot. And no mention that Iranian women graduate in STEM fields at nearly three times the rate of American women, or that Iran has ranked first in the world for female engineering enrolment⁹¹ — facts that do not fit the image of a nation reducible to bearded clerics and burning flags.

When Amini was arrested by Iran’s morality police in September 2022, she died in custody three days later. What followed was the largest anti-regime uprising since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Protests erupted in over a hundred and fifty cities across all thirty provinces. Young women stood on cars and cut their hair. The slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom” became a global rallying cry. The regime responded with the machinery it knows best: security forces using live ammunition, mass arrests, executions. Over five hundred people were killed. More than twenty-two thousand were detained. At least ten were executed after trials that international observers described as shams.⁷⁶

This was not a distant event. It was broadcast in real time on every social media platform in the world. The Iranian people — overwhelmingly the young, overwhelmingly women — showed the world exactly who they were and what they wanted. They wanted freedom. They wanted accountability. They wanted the regime gone. And they were willing to die for it.

And then the world moved on.

By late 2025, Iran was convulsing again. New protests erupted in December — described as the largest since 2022. Protesters chanted “Death to the Dictator.” Students at Shahid Beheshti University declared that the system “won’t be changed with reform or with false promises.” The government responded with the same playbook: live ammunition, heavy machine guns, snipers targeting heads and vital organs. A Tehran doctor reported that security forces were “shooting to kill.”⁷⁷

These are the people being bombed. Not only the ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard commanders — but the people. The fourteen hundred dead in the first two weeks of Operation Epic Fury are not all regime figures. They include the women who marched under “Woman, Life, Freedom” and the men who stood beside them. They include the students and the shopkeepers and the mothers and the poets. They include the hundred and seventy-five people — most of them schoolgirls between the ages of seven and twelve — who were in the Minab girls’ school on the morning of the twenty-eighth of February and were not alive by the afternoon.⁷⁸

And if there was opposition to the regime — and there was, in the streets, in the universities, in the protests that were still burning when the first bombs fell — the hundred and seventy-five dead schoolgirls in Minab crushed it. You cannot bomb a people into revolution. You can only bomb them into solidarity with the only power that remains standing. Every parent who pulled a child’s body from the rubble of that school is not thinking about regime change. They are thinking about who dropped the bomb. The strikes did not weaken the regime. They gave it the one thing it could not manufacture on its own: a reason for the Iranian people to stop fighting their government and start fighting ours.

The failure to distinguish between regime and people is not merely a media failure. It is the precondition for the war itself. You cannot bomb more than ninety million people if you see them as people. You can only bomb them if they have been reduced to a single word — Evil — and that word has been emptied of every human particular. The media narrative that presents Iran as a monolith is not incidental to the violence. It is the anaesthesia that makes the violence possible.

And the anaesthesia was applied at precisely the moment when the antidote was available. On the twenty-seventh of February 2026, Oman’s foreign minister appeared on CBS and told the American people that a peace deal was within reach. How many Americans saw that interview? How many cable news hours were devoted to the breakthrough compared to the hours spent on the threat narrative? The Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi suggested that Al Busaidi went public deliberately — “so that the American people knew that peace was within reach when Trump instead opted for war.”⁷⁹ But knowing requires someone to tell you. And the machinery of American media was not built to tell you that the enemy was ready to negotiate. It was built to tell you that the enemy was coming to harm you.

The White House’s gamification videos — Call of Duty kill scores over real explosions, SpongeBob asking “do you want to see me do it again?” — are not a separate phenomenon. They are the media narrative’s logical endpoint. Once you have erased the humanity of more than ninety million people, the next step is entertainment. The “+100” hovering over a real explosion does not inform. It confirms. There are no people on the other end. Only targets. Only content. Only fun.

But the narrative is fracturing. An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll conducted in the first week of March found that fifty-five percent of Americans see Iran as a minor threat or no threat at all. Fifty-six percent oppose the military action. Among eighteen-to-twenty-nine-year-olds — the generation raised on social media, the generation that watched the Mahsa Amini protests in real time — approval of Trump’s handling of Iran stands at twenty-five percent.⁸⁰ The monolith is cracking. Not fast enough. But cracking.

Share

The Political Theatre

On the ninth of March, the Quinnipiac University poll reported President Trump’s overall approval at thirty-seven percent. His approval on the economy — traditionally his strongest issue — stood at thirty-nine percent, with fifty-eight percent disapproving. That was the highest economic disapproval Quinnipiac had ever recorded for this president.⁸¹ His approval on the situation with Iran was thirty-eight percent.

The war arrived at a moment when every other political metric was collapsing — and when the administration was haemorrhaging credibility on another front entirely. The Epstein files, released in waves since December 2025, had become a political crisis in their own right. By late January, the Department of Justice had published 3.5 million pages of documents in which Trump’s name appeared over three thousand times. Members of Congress who viewed the unredacted files reported content directly related to the president. On the sixth of March — one week into the war — the DOJ released additional FBI documents describing a woman’s allegations that Trump had sexually assaulted her as a teenager after being introduced to her by Epstein.⁹² The war did not make the Epstein files disappear. But it did move them off the front page.

And the question every honest observer must ask is whether the timing was coincidental.

War has always served domestic political purposes. It rallies the base. It changes the subject. It transforms the president from a politician into a commander-in-chief, and opposition from legitimate criticism into something that can be framed as disloyalty. Political scientists call it the rally-around-the-flag effect — the surge in presidential approval that typically follows the initiation of military action. George H.W. Bush saw his approval jump to eighty-nine percent at the start of the Gulf War. George W. Bush reached ninety percent after the eleventh of September. The effect is one of the most consistent findings in the study of American public opinion.⁸²

It is not working.

Nate Silver’s approval tracker, which aggregates multiple polls, found no rally-around-the-flag effect from the Iran war. Trump’s net approval moved from minus 13.5 at the start of March to minus 13.9 by the fourteenth — not a collapse, but not the surge that every modern wartime president has enjoyed. The war is not helping.⁸³ And the historical pattern — confirmed by the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq — suggests that once the initial window for a rally closes, public opinion only moves in one direction: against the war, and against the president who started it.

The fracture is visible even within Trump’s own coalition. Tucker Carlson — who was more muted after the June 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — called the March war “absolutely disgusting and evil.” Megyn Kelly expressed “serious doubts.” Fox News host Will Cain questioned the clarity of the mission.⁸⁴ These are not Democratic operatives or academic critics. These are the voices of the American right. And while they do not represent the majority of rank-and-file Republicans — seventy-seven percent of whom still support the strikes in the most favourable polling — the erosion is measurable. A Reuters-Ipsos poll found Republican support for the Iran strikes had dropped from sixty-nine percent during the June 2025 operations to fifty-five percent in March 2026. Forty-two percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to oppose the mission if American troops were killed or injured.⁸⁵ American troops have been killed. More will be.

Even Fox News’s own polling — conducted by Beacon Research and Shaw & Company — found that fifty-one percent of voters believed Trump’s handling of Iran had made the United States less safe. Only twenty-nine percent said he had made it safer.⁸⁶

That twenty-nine percent floor is worth examining. It maps almost precisely onto the roughly quarter of the American electorate that identifies as white evangelical Christian — the same demographic whose theological framework, documented in this article and in “Holy War,” treats Middle Eastern conflict as biblical prophecy rather than policy. When the only Americans who believe the war has made them safer are the Americans who believe the war is God’s plan, the political calculation is not a calculation. It is a confession.

But if the base reveals the truth by what it celebrates, the administration reveals it by what it conceals. Trump has used the word “excursion” repeatedly to describe what is happening in Iran — the latest in a seventy-six-year tradition of creative language designed to avoid calling war what it is. Truman called Korea a “police action.” Obama called Libya “kinetic military action.” Trump calls a sustained bombing campaign that has killed over fourteen hundred people, destroyed an entire nation’s economic infrastructure, and assassinated a head of state an “excursion.”⁸⁷ The euphemism is not a verbal tic. It is a tell. It reveals that even the people waging the war understand it cannot survive contact with an honest description of itself.

The rally-around-the-flag effect depends on a precondition that no longer exists: national unity. The effect works because war, in its opening days, creates a moment of shared identity that transcends partisan division. But in a polarised electorate where everything — weather, vaccines, the shape of the earth — is contested along partisan lines, that shared identity is no longer available. There is no flag for everyone to rally around, because there is no everyone. There are only factions, each with its own media ecosystem, its own facts, its own version of the war. The rally effect requires a nation. America, at this moment, is not one.

And so the political calculation fails on its own terms. Thirteen Americans are dead. Over fourteen hundred Iranians are dead. The president who sent them to war is polling at thirty-six percent approval on his handling of Iran, fifty-four percent disapproval.⁸⁸ The war has not improved his numbers. It has not changed the subject from the economy. It has not unified the country. It has consumed the lives of American service members and Iranian civilians for a political return that is not merely diminishing — it was never there.

What Remains

Every argument for this war collapses under scrutiny. The nuclear argument is circular — the administration that abandoned the deal now bombs the programme its abandonment accelerated, while a second and better deal lay on the table. The faith-based argument is unconstitutional — a war legible to its architects as biblical prophecy is a war the First Amendment was written to prevent. The media narrative erases the people being bombed — compressing more than ninety million human beings into a target, a threat, a monolith called Evil. And the White House turned that monolith into a video game. And the political calculation treats American and Iranian lives as expendable currency in a domestic power game that is not even paying dividends.

So if the nuclear argument is circular, the theological argument is unconstitutional, the media narrative is manufactured, and the political calculation is failing — then what was this war actually for?

The answer was given to us before the first bomb fell, by the man who had spent weeks trying to prevent them. Oman’s foreign minister stated that the war was “solely an attempt to reorder the Middle East in Israel’s favour.” That assessment deserves to be taken seriously, because Al Busaidi is not a commentator. He was the mediator. He was in the room.

Israel’s interest in this war is not hidden and it is not new. Netanyahu has sought the destruction of Iran’s military capability for decades — not because Iran poses an existential nuclear threat that diplomacy cannot resolve, but because Iran is the last major regional power capable of challenging Israeli dominance in the Middle East. With Hezbollah decapitated in Lebanon, Assad toppled in Syria, and Hamas broken in Gaza, Iran was the final obstacle. The war is the capstone of a project that predates Trump, predates the JCPOA, and predates the nuclear programme itself: the reshaping of the Middle East into an architecture that guarantees Israeli supremacy from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Netanyahu said as much himself. In his first press conference since the war began, on the twelfth of March, he listed his conquests — Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iran — and declared that Israel was becoming a “global superpower.”⁹³ The mask did not slip. He took it off.

Saudi Arabia’s interest runs on a parallel track. The Kingdom’s rivalry with Iran is older than the Islamic Republic — it is a contest for regional leadership rooted in sectarian competition, oil politics, and competing visions of the Muslim world. Riyadh did not need to fire a single missile to benefit from this war. Every bomb that falls on Iranian infrastructure weakens Saudi Arabia’s primary regional competitor. The Saudis have managed the war carefully — absorbing Iranian retaliatory strikes on their territory while avoiding direct military involvement, positioning themselves to emerge from the conflict with their rival diminished and their own standing enhanced.

And waiting in the wings, as he has been for forty-seven years, is Reza Pahlavi — the exiled crown prince, son of the Shah whose dictatorship was installed by a CIA coup in 1953 and toppled by the revolution in 1979. Pahlavi is in direct contact with the Trump administration through special envoy Steve Witkoff. He has appeared on Fox News, CBS, and Lara Trump’s show. On the fourteenth of March — while the bombs were still falling — he declared himself ready to lead a “transitional system” the moment the Islamic Republic collapses. He is scheduled to speak at CPAC later this month.⁹⁴

The pattern is seventy-three years old. In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who nationalised Iran’s oil industry. The CIA and MI6 overthrew him and installed the Pahlavi monarchy — a compliant dictatorship backed by American arms and the SAVAK secret police for twenty-six years, until the revolution that produced the very regime now being bombed.⁹⁵ The cycle is not hidden. It is the operating logic of American policy toward Iran: undermine every internal movement toward reform, ensure that the only alternatives are the hardliners or a Western-aligned exile, and then cite the hardliners as the reason for the next intervention. Khatami’s reformists were crushed by the “Axis of Evil.” The JCPOA was abandoned. The February 2026 negotiations were bombed. And each time, the man waiting to inherit the wreckage is a Pahlavi — aligned with Israeli and Saudi interests, promising democracy for a country he has not set foot in since 1978.

“Regime change” does not mean what the American public has been led to believe it means. It does not mean democracy. It has never meant democracy — not in 1953, not now, not ever. It means the installation of a government that serves the interests of the powers that installed it. The Iranian people have been trying to change their own regime — through reform, through protest, through elections, through revolution — for decades. They have been undermined at every turn, not by the absence of American intervention but by its presence.

These are not American interests. The average American — the reservist from Iowa, the sergeant from Nebraska, the pilot from Alabama whose twins will grow up without a father — has nothing to gain from the reordering of the Middle East in Israel’s favour or the advancement of Saudi Arabia’s regional ambitions. The thirteen dead Americans did not die for American security. They died for someone else’s project, sold to the American public through decades of theological conditioning, media narrative construction, and political manipulation so thorough that the people inside it no longer recognise it as manipulation. The four arguments dismantled in this article are not independent phenomena. They are the delivery mechanism — the packaging through which Israeli and Saudi strategic interests were translated into language that American voters, American soldiers, and American taxpayers could be persuaded to accept.

What remains when every justification has been stripped away?

What remains is force without reason. The thing that law — all law, from the earliest codes to the Geneva Conventions — was built to prevent. Part One of this series made the legal case. Part Two has examined the arguments that were supposed to supply the moral case, the strategic case, the democratic case. They are empty. What we are left with is what the law says we are left with: an act of aggression, undertaken by choice, against a nation that was at the negotiating table when the first bombs fell.

The promise of “Never Again” — the principle that emerged from the ashes of the Second World War, from the death camps and the firebombed cities and the atomic craters — was never reserved for one people. That was its power. That was the entire point. “Never Again” meant that the international community would build a legal order robust enough to prevent the strong from devouring the weak whenever it suited them. It meant that the suffering of the few would be recognised as the concern of all, because the alternative — a world where sovereignty means nothing and power means everything — was a world that had already been tried, at a cost of eighty million lives, and found to be unsurvivable.

The law exists because empathy alone is not enough. Empathy can be switched off. It can be narrowed — reserved for those who look like us, speak like us, pray like us. It can be anaesthetised by distance, by euphemism, by a “+100” hovering over a real explosion. The law exists to hold the line when empathy fails. It exists to say: even when you do not feel the suffering of strangers, you may not cause it. Even when the media has erased their faces and the president has called their destruction fun, they are protected — not by your compassion, which is unreliable, but by a structure that does not depend on whether you care.

That structure is what is being dismantled. And what is lost in its dismantling is not only the protection of the Iranians being bombed today. It is the protection of everyone, everywhere, who might one day need the law to stand between them and a more powerful adversary. Including Americans. Especially Americans, who have more enemies and more to lose than any other nation on earth when the rules collapse.

A hundred and seventy-five people died in a girls’ school in Minab. Most of them were between seven and twelve years old. They were not combatants. They were not threats. They were not “enemy targets.” They were children, and they were in school, and they are dead. No nuclear argument justifies their deaths. No biblical prophecy justifies the means to this end. No media narrative can erase them, however hard it tries. No political calculation can destroy their lives and call it strategy.

They are the cost. Not of a policy disagreement. Not of a strategic miscalculation. But of the slow, incremental surrender of conscience that makes war possible when no honest argument supports it. The surrender happens in small steps. You accept the euphemism. You stop seeing the faces. You let the legal fiction pass unchallenged. You watch the gamification video and feel nothing. Each concession seems small — perhaps nothing. Perhaps even reasonable. But the arithmetic is unforgiving. What begins as a small accommodation to expedience ends as something else entirely. The word for it is old, and it is not fashionable, but it is precise: depravity. The state in which the machinery of destruction operates without resistance, because the conscience that might have resisted has been surrendered, piece by piece, until there is nothing left to resist with.

This is not only Iran’s tragedy. It is a test — of American law, of international order, of the principle that human life has a value that cannot be overridden by the calculations of the powerful. That test is being failed. And the failure reverberates — not only in the streets of Tehran and the rubble of Minab, but in the erosion of the moral authority that once made the world listen when America spoke, in the alliances fraying under the weight of a war no ally endorsed, in the economic instability that follows when the world’s reserve currency is wielded as a weapon and the world’s most powerful military is deployed without legal authority, and in the precedent — the quiet, devastating precedent — that tells every other powerful state on earth that the rules are optional, that sovereignty is a fiction, and that the strong may do as they please.

The struggle is not only for the people of Iran, though they are paying the highest price. It is for the soul of a nation that once believed it could be governed by law rather than by the will of the most powerful. It is for the idea — fragile, contested, never fully realised — that human civilisation can be organised around something better than force. And it is for each of us, individually, because the conscience that looks away today is the conscience that will not be there tomorrow, when the machinery turns in a direction we did not expect and the law we allowed to be broken is the one we needed most.

The law is not an abstraction. It is the infrastructure of a world in which Declan Coady’s family gets a phone call instead of a folded flag, in which Alex Klinner’s twins grow up knowing their father, in which a hundred and seventy-five girls in Minab finish their school day, go home, and one day complete their STEM degrees. Every argument for this war has failed. What remains is the choice: rebuild the law, or live in the ruins.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that's how the fire spreads.

Share

If you found this valuable, please support me with a like, share, or Subscribe.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Banner image: Mass funeral for victims of US-Israeli strikes in Iran. Credit: Al Jazeera

Endnotes

⁵⁹ The JCPOA was finalised on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) plus the European Union. It was implemented on 16 January 2016 after the IAEA verified Iran’s compliance with initial commitments. For the specific constraints: enrichment limit of 3.67%, stockpile cap of 300 kg of low-enriched uranium, reduction from approximately 19,000 centrifuges to 6,104 (with only 5,060 enriching), redesign of the Arak reactor, and comprehensive IAEA monitoring. Council on Foreign Relations, “What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal?”; Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “Fact Sheet: The Iran Deal, Then and Now,” updated June 2025; European Council, “Iran’s Nuclear Agreement — JCPOA.”

⁶⁰ Breakout time under the JCPOA estimated at over one year. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, op. cit. The IAEA confirmed that the JCPOA verification regime provided unprecedented transparency into Iran’s nuclear programme.

⁶¹ Trump announced the withdrawal on 8 May 2018 in a speech at the White House. The White House, “President Donald J. Trump is Ending United States Participation in an Unacceptable Iran Deal,” 8 May 2018.

⁶² General Joseph Dunford, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 26 September 2017. Pompeo’s acknowledgment of IAEA compliance findings reported in multiple outlets. FactCheck.org, “Trump’s Claim About the Obama Nuclear Deal and Iran’s Nuclear Development,” 12 March 2026.

⁶³ Iran exceeded low-enriched uranium stockpile limits by July 2019 and began enriching beyond 3.67% by the same month. It subsequently enriched to 60% and installed advanced centrifuges. The IAEA’s November 2024 report estimated breakout time at approximately one week. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, op. cit.; IAEA reports cited therein.

⁶⁴ Laura Rockwood, senior fellow at the Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (28 years at the IAEA), quoted in FactCheck.org, op. cit. Richard Nephew, senior research scholar at Columbia University and former special envoy for Iran at the State Department, quoted ibid.

⁶⁵ The negotiations timeline and Al Busaidi’s CBS appearance are documented in Part One, endnotes 52–57. Araghchi’s 25 February statement: Al Jazeera, “Iran’s FM says deal with US ‘within reach,’” 25 February 2026. Al Busaidi’s 27 February CBS appearance: CBS News, “U.S.-Iran deal is ‘within our reach,’ Omani mediator says,” 27 February 2026.

⁶⁶ James S. Coates, “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” Fireline Press, 18 March 2026.

⁶⁷ Isaiah 45:1 (English Standard Version). Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 539 BCE and issued the Cyrus Decree permitting the return of the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem. The decree is referenced in 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and Ezra 1:1–4.

⁶⁸ Lance Wallnau, God’s Chaos Candidate (Killer Sheep Media, 2016). Wallnau is a figure in the New Apostolic Reformation. The Cyrus parallel was central to his 2015–2016 advocacy for Trump among evangelical audiences. CBS News, Charisma magazine, and multiple outlets reported Wallnau’s framing. See also Contrarian News, “Why Do Christian Nationalists Support Trump War With Iran?” March 2026, for detailed reporting on Wallnau’s FlashPoint appearances during the Iran war.

⁶⁹ Netanyahu compared Trump to Cyrus at multiple public events beginning in 2018, particularly in connection with the embassy move to Jerusalem. See CounterPunch, “Biblical Bloodlust: Huckabee, Cyrus, and the Zionist Greater Israel Fantasy Fueling the Iran War,” 6 March 2026; CBS News; Charisma magazine.

⁷⁰ Pew Research Center survey finding roughly a third of white evangelicals believed Trump’s election reflected God’s will, cited in CBS News and multiple analyses of evangelical political theology.

⁷¹ Reza Pahlavi’s invocation of the “Time of Cyrus” alongside “Time of Trump” in January 2026 statements and interviews. Wall Street Journal; Beit HaShoavah analysis, 18 January 2026.

⁷² FlashPoint TV broadcasts during the first week of Operation Epic Fury. Wallnau: “Israel and the return of Jesus is back on the menu”; “It’s about Cyrus Trump leading the greatest gentile nation in history, in a Last Days-moment.” Sewell: Trump as “our modern day Cyrus” who turned spiritual warfare literal. Documented in Contrarian News, op. cit., with detailed transcription of broadcast segments.

⁷³ Hegseth’s statement reported by Al Jazeera, “Why are the US and Israel framing the ongoing conflict as a religious war?” 4 March 2026. See also CAIR’s condemnation of the Pentagon’s “dangerous” and “anti-Muslim” rhetoric, reported in the same article.

⁷⁴ Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, ratified unanimously by the United States Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed by President John Adams. The full text of Article 11: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]…”

⁷⁵ Students at Shahid Beheshti University, statement during the 2025–2026 Iranian protests. Wikipedia, “2025–2026 Iranian protests,” citing Iranian press and protest documentation. The full quote: “This criminal system has taken our future hostage for 47 years. It won’t be changed with reform or with false promises.”

⁷⁶ The Mahsa Amini protests of 2022–2023: Amini was arrested on 13 September 2022 and died on 16 September. Protests spread to over 150 cities in all 30 provinces. Casualty and detention figures from Human Rights Watch, the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Iran, Amnesty International, and ACLED. Seven individuals were executed in connection with the protests as of spring 2023; the total reached ten by August 2024 (Amnesty International). See also UN OHCHR, “Justice and accountability: Woman, Life, Freedom protests,” April 2025, documenting crimes against humanity findings.

⁷⁷ The 2025–2026 Iranian protests began in late December 2025 and were described as the largest since 2022. Security forces used live ammunition, DShK heavy machine guns, and snipers. A Tehran doctor quoted in The Guardian (13 January 2026) reported that security forces were “shooting to kill.” The Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre cited evidence of forces targeting heads, eyes, and vital organs. Wikipedia, “2025–2026 Iranian protests,” accessed 16 March 2026, citing The Guardian, IranWire, AP, and Human Rights Watch.

⁷⁸ The Minab girls’ school strike and casualty figures are documented in Part One, endnotes 10 and 13.

⁷⁹ Trita Parsi quoted in Common Dreams, “Oman’s Foreign Minister Said US-Iran Deal Was ‘Within Our Reach.’ Then Trump Started Bombing,” 1 March 2026. See Part One, endnote 57.

⁸⁰ NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll, conducted 2–4 March 2026, n=1,591 adults, margin of error ±2.8 percentage points. Fifty-six percent oppose military action; thirty-six percent approve of Trump’s handling of Iran; fifty-five percent see Iran as a minor threat or no threat at all. Approval among 18–29 year-olds at twenty-five percent. NPR, “Poll: A majority of Americans opposes U.S. military action in Iran,” 6 March 2026; Marist Poll, “War with Iran, March 2026.”

⁸¹ Quinnipiac University Poll, conducted 6–8 March 2026, n=1,002 registered voters, margin of error ±3.8 percentage points. Overall approval: 37%. Economy disapproval: 58% (described as the highest Quinnipiac had ever recorded for Trump). Iran handling: 38% approve, 57% disapprove. Quinnipiac University Poll, release 9 March 2026.

⁸² The rally-around-the-flag effect is one of the most studied phenomena in American political science. See John Mueller, “Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson,” American Political Science Review 64, no. 1 (1970); Marc Hetherington and Michael Nelson, “Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism,” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, no. 1 (2003).

⁸³ Nate Silver / Silver Bulletin, Trump approval tracker, accessed 16 March 2026. Net approval moved from −13.5 at the start of March to −13.9 by 14 March. Silver noted: “We’re no longer seeing a rally-around-the-flag effect… but Trump’s support hasn’t declined either.”

⁸⁴ Tucker Carlson quoted as calling the war “absolutely disgusting and evil” in CNN, “Analysis: How much is Trump’s base on board with war with Iran?” 3 March 2026. Megyn Kelly’s “serious doubts” and Will Cain’s questioning reported ibid.

⁸⁵ Republican support for Iran strikes dropped from 69% (June 2025 operations) to 55% (March 2026) in Reuters-Ipsos polling. Forty-two percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to oppose the mission if US troops were killed or injured. CNN, op. cit.

⁸⁶ Fox News poll conducted by Beacon Research (left-leaning) and Shaw & Company Research (right-leaning), 28 February–2 March 2026, n=1,004 registered voters, margin of error ±3 percentage points. Fifty-one percent said Trump’s handling of Iran made the US less safe; twenty-nine percent said safer. Overall foreign policy approval: 40% approve, 60% disapprove. Newsweek, “Donald Trump’s Approval Rating for Iran War Ahead by Double Digits: Poll,” 6 March 2026.

⁸⁷ Trump’s repeated use of the word “excursion” to describe the Iran war reported by NPR, “New poll shows Americans are skeptical of Trump’s Iran war,” 11 March 2026. The pattern of euphemism is documented in Part One: Truman’s “police action” (Korea), Obama’s “kinetic military action” (Libya), and previous uses of “consistent with the War Powers Resolution.”

⁸⁸ NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll, op. cit. Thirty-six percent approve, fifty-four percent disapprove, of Trump’s handling of Iran.

⁸⁹ Al Busaidi’s post-war characterisation reported in Al Jazeera, “Oman renews push for diplomacy, says ‘off-ramps available’ in Iran war,” 3 March 2026. See Part One, endnote 55.

⁹⁰ President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address, 29 January 2002, designated Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an “axis of evil.” At the time, President Mohammad Khatami’s reformist government (1997–2005) had pursued a “Dialogue Among Civilizations” initiative, recognised by the United Nations, and had cooperated with the United States on intelligence sharing after the September 11 attacks. The “Axis of Evil” designation strengthened hardliners within Iran who had argued that engagement with the United States was futile and weakened the reformist movement that had won two consecutive presidential elections.

⁹¹ UNESCO data shows women account for approximately 35% of STEM graduates in Iran, compared to 12.7% in the United States as of 2021. In engineering, Iranian female enrolment has ranked first in the world; in science fields, second globally. UNESCO Institute for Statistics Data Browser; Snopes, “Checking claims about Iran’s female literacy, STEM graduate rates,” 26 June 2025; Purdue University School of Engineering Education, “The STEM Paradox: Why are Muslim-Majority Countries Producing So Many Female Engineers?”; Parhami, B., “Women in Science and Engineering: A Tale of Two Countries,” ASEE, 2021.

⁹² The Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed into law on 19 November 2025. The DOJ released 3.5 million pages by 1 February 2026, including over 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. Trump’s name appeared over 3,000 times in the released files. DOJ, “Department of Justice Publishes 3.5 Million Responsive Pages in Compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” 1 February 2026. Members of Congress viewing unredacted files reported content related to Trump: Rep. Maxwell Frost stated he had only “scratched the tip of the iceberg” but that “a lot of these did relate to Donald Trump” (Wikipedia, “Epstein Files Transparency Act,” citing contemporaneous reporting). On 6 March 2026, the DOJ released additional FBI documents describing a woman’s allegations of sexual assault by Trump as a teenager after introduction by Epstein: Al Jazeera, “Epstein files with claims against Trump released by US Justice Department,” 6 March 2026. Trump’s approval on handling the Epstein case stood at 23% in a December 2025 Reuters poll.

⁹³ Netanyahu’s press conference, 12 March 2026 — his first since the war began. He listed Israel’s campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran and declared Israel was becoming a “global superpower.” Al Jazeera, “Netanyahu says Israel ‘stronger than ever’ in first speech since Iran war,” 12 March 2026; GlobalSecurity.org, “Statement by PM Netanyahu — 7 March 2026” (full translated text of his earlier address); Times of Israel, “Netanyahu says he doesn’t know if Iranians will oust regime, threatens new supreme leader,” 12 March 2026.

⁹⁴ Pahlavi’s contact with the Trump administration via Steve Witkoff: NBC News, “An exiled crown prince says he can lead Iran to democracy, but Trump hasn’t endorsed him,” 25 January 2026; The Hill, “Iran’s exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi says he’s been in contact with Trump administration,” 14 March 2026. Pahlavi’s declaration of readiness to lead a “transitional system”: Fox News, “Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi announces readiness to lead Iran’s post-regime transition,” 14 March 2026. CPAC appearance: confirmed in The Hill, op. cit. CBS appearance calling for Trump to “intervene sooner”: CBS News, “Iran’s exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi urges Trump to ‘intervene sooner’ so regime ‘finally collapses,’” 12 January 2026. The Nation described Pahlavi’s alliance with “an unsavory crew of authoritarians headed by US President Donald Trump, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu”: The Nation, “Trump’s Regime Change Fantasy Involves Bringing Back the Shah,” 8 August 2025.

⁹⁵ The 1953 CIA-MI6 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh (Operation Ajax / Operation Boot) is extensively documented. The CIA formally acknowledged its role in 2013. See Britannica, “1953 coup in Iran”; National Security Archive, “CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup”; Ervand Abrahamian, The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations (The New Press, 2013). Mossadegh had nationalised Iran’s oil industry in 1951. The coup installed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, whose dictatorship lasted until the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Just for fun.

Thirteen American service members are dead.² Six of them — reservists from Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Florida, California — were killed on the first of March when an Iranian drone struck a makeshift operations centre at Port Shuaiba in Kuwait.³ They were not combat troops storming a beachhead. They were logistics personnel, sustainment soldiers, the people who keep the machinery running. Four of them had served together in Kuwait in 2019. They knew each other’s families.⁴ Captain Cody Khork, thirty-five, from Winter Haven, Florida — his family called him “the life of the party.” Sergeant First Class Noah Tietjens, forty-two, from Bellevue, Nebraska — a mentor who “made you feel important,” whose twelve-year-old son is now growing up without a father. Sergeant Declan Coady, twenty, from West Des Moines — the youngest, promoted posthumously to a rank he will never wear, studying cybersecurity at Drake University between shifts. He had been texting his family updates every hour. When the texts stopped, his father said, “Your gut starts to get a feeling.”⁵

On the eighth of March, Sergeant Benjamin Pennington, twenty-six, from Glendale, Kentucky, died of wounds sustained at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia on the first of March. He had held on for seven days. Flags in Hardin County flew at half-staff.⁶

Then, on the twelfth of March, a KC-135 Stratotanker — call sign Zeus 95 — went down over western Iraq. Six aircrew.⁷ Major Alex Klinner, thirty-three, from Auburn, Alabama, left behind seven-month-old twins and a two-year-old son. His brother-in-law said the hardest thing to say was also the simplest: “He was just a really good dad.” Captain Ariana Savino, thirty-one, had only earned her pilot wings the year before. Technical Sergeant Tyler Simmons, twenty-eight, had what his family called a “million-dollar smile.”⁸

Thirteen families who will set one fewer place at the table. Children who will grow up knowing their mother or father only from photographs and the stories other people tell. That is the cost of this war on the American side, and it is real, and it deserves to be named.

Now turn the mirror.

Iran’s Health Ministry reports more than fourteen hundred people killed since the twenty-eighth of February. Over eighteen thousand injured. In Tehran alone, ten thousand homes have been damaged or destroyed.⁹ A school was struck — a hundred and seventy-five students and teachers killed.¹⁰ Secretary of War Hegseth boasts that more than fifteen thousand “enemy targets” have been struck.¹¹ Targets. He does not say homes. He does not say schools. He does not say the bakery on the corner where a man bought bread for his children every morning before the morning there was no bakery and no man and no children. The language of targeting does what it is designed to do: it makes people disappear before you have to look at what you did to them.

And the man who commands this machinery — who holds the power to end it or to escalate it, who bears the constitutional responsibility for every life spent in its execution — describes bombing a sovereign nation’s economic infrastructure as something he might do again “just for fun.”

This is not a policy disagreement. It is a window into something deeper. “Just for fun” is the language of a man who has never personally absorbed the cost of a single decision he has made. Not in business, where bankruptcy was a strategy and other people lost their homes. Not in politics, where cruelty is a brand and other people bear the consequences. Not in war, where the dead are props for a rally and their parents are told to be proud. When you have spent your entire adult life insulated from consequences — by money, by lawyers, by subordinates paid to absorb the damage — other people’s suffering becomes abstract. Entertainment. Content. Fun.

And it is not just the President. It is the administration. In the first two weeks of the war, the White House posted a series of videos to its official social media accounts that spliced real footage of American strikes on Iran with gameplay from Call of Duty, complete with the game’s “+100” kill score notifications superimposed over actual explosions. One video opened with a Grand Theft Auto meme — “Ah shit, here we go again” — before cutting to live strike footage. Another showed a real bombing followed by a clip from SpongeBob SquarePants in which the cartoon character asks, “do you want to see me do it again?” before showing another strike. A third flashed the word “wasted” — Grand Theft Auto’s kill confirmation — over footage of a real attack on what appeared to be an Iranian vehicle. A fourth ended with audio from Mortal Kombat: “Flawless victory.”¹² The White House posted these videos while the Department of War was investigating whether American forces had bombed an elementary school in Minab that killed a hundred and seventy-five people, most of them schoolgirls between the ages of seven and twelve.¹³

Senator Tammy Duckworth — a combat veteran who lost both legs in Iraq — responded: “War is not a f*cking video game. Six Americans are dead and thousands more are at needless risk because of your illegal, unjustified war. And you’re calling this a flawless victory.”¹⁴

She is right. And the gamification is not incidental to the pathology. It is the pathology. When a government presents the killing of human beings in the visual language of entertainment — when it borrows the reward mechanics of games designed to make violence pleasurable — it is not just failing to take the war seriously. It is actively training its own population not to feel what is being done in their name. The “+100” hovering over a real explosion does not inform. It anaesthetises. It turns the viewer into a spectator, then into a player, then into someone for whom the next strike is not a moral event but a content drop. This is what happens when a nation’s leadership has no personal connection to the cost of war. It becomes a brand exercise. A content strategy. Fun.

But “just for fun” is not merely callous. It has a legal name. Kharg Island is not a military installation. It is the economic lifeline of more than ninety million people — the terminal through which the oil revenues flow that pay for food, for medicine, for the infrastructure that keeps a nation functioning. Bombing it does not hurt the regime. The ayatollahs have bunkers and reserves and alternative supply chains. The shopkeeper in Isfahan does not. The mother in Shiraz who cannot afford bread because the economy has been severed at its artery does not. When you bomb a nation’s economic infrastructure to pressure its government, it is the population that absorbs the damage. Every time. Without exception.

This is not a novel observation. It is a pattern so consistent it should disqualify the strategy on its own merits. Sanctions on Iraq did not topple Saddam Hussein — they killed hundreds of thousands of children while the regime built palaces.¹⁵ The blockade on Gaza did not weaken Hamas — it radicalised a generation while civilians went hungry. In every case, the logic is the same: punish the population until they rise up against their rulers. In every case, the result is the opposite: a starving population does not rise up. It survives. The regime becomes the only entity with the resources to distribute what remains, the population becomes more dependent on it, not less, and whatever energy might have fuelled resistance is spent instead on finding the next meal, the next dose of medicine, the next safe place to sleep. You cannot bomb and starve a people into revolution. You can only bomb and starve them into submission — and the entity they submit to is the one you claimed to be fighting. It is not just cruel. It is strategically illiterate. And under international humanitarian law, it has a specific name: collective punishment. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits it explicitly.¹⁶ Targeting civilian economic infrastructure to coerce a population is not a grey area. It is a war crime.

Declan Coady was twenty years old. He was not fun. He was a person. Alex Klinner’s twins are seven months old. They are not content. They are children who will never know their father’s voice. And somewhere in Tehran, a mother is pulling her daughter’s school uniform from the rubble, and she is not an enemy target. She is a human being whose government and whose attackers have both failed her.

Was any of this legal?

That is the question this article exists to answer. Not whether it was popular. Not whether Iran’s regime deserved to fall. Not whether the strikes were strategically effective. Whether they were lawful — under the Constitution that every one of those thirteen service members swore to support and defend, and under the international order that the United States itself built and once claimed to lead.

The answer, on both counts, is no.

Share

The Constitution

The text is not ambiguous. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress — and Congress alone — the power to declare war. Not the President. Not the Pentagon. Not the Secretary of War. Congress. The Founders were explicit about this, and they were explicit for a reason: they had lived under a king who could send men to die on his own authority, and they designed a system to ensure that no American executive would ever hold that power unchecked. The decision to go to war — to spend the lives of citizens in organised violence against another nation — was to be made by the representatives of the people, not by one man in one room.

The last time Congress formally declared war was 1942.¹⁷

Every American conflict since — Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Iran — has been waged without a declaration of war. This is not a minor constitutional footnote. It is the single most consequential erosion of democratic authority in the history of the republic, and it has been built brick by brick, by presidents of both parties, over eighty-three years.

The erosion began in 1950, when President Truman committed American forces to Korea under a United Nations Security Council resolution and called it a “police action.” He never asked Congress for authorisation. Congress never demanded it. Thirty-six thousand, five hundred and seventy-four Americans died in a police action.¹⁸ The constitutional question went largely unasked, and the silence was read as consent.

In 1964, President Johnson persuaded Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — an authorisation based on a naval incident that, as subsequent investigation revealed, did not happen as described.¹⁹ That resolution was used to escalate American involvement in Vietnam to the point where over five hundred thousand troops were deployed and nearly fifty-eight thousand Americans were killed. It was not a declaration of war. It functioned as one. And when it was over, Congress recognised that it had allowed a president to fight a full-scale war under authorities that looked nothing like what the Constitution required — and that the power to decide when America goes to war had been quietly stripped from the institution the Founders had entrusted with it.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was Congress’s attempt to reclaim its authority, passed over President Nixon’s veto after the revelation of secret bombings in Cambodia that Congress had never authorised.²⁰ The Resolution required the president to notify Congress within forty-eight hours of committing forces to hostilities and to withdraw those forces within sixty days unless Congress granted authorisation. It was meant to be a constraint. In practice, it became a licence. Before 1973, any military action without congressional approval was constitutionally suspect. After 1973, presidents claimed an automatic sixty-day window for any operation they chose to define as “limited.” The tool designed to check executive war-making inadvertently expanded it.

And every subsequent president tested the boundary further. Reagan deployed troops to Lebanon in 1982 without citing the War Powers Resolution and did not seek congressional authorisation until after service members had already died. Clinton bombed Kosovo in 1999 and continued the campaign for more than two weeks past the sixty-day deadline, arguing that congressional funding constituted implicit authorisation — even though the War Powers Resolution explicitly states that funding alone does not constitute authorisation. Obama bombed Libya in 2011 for seven months, calling it “kinetic military action“ rather than war and claiming American involvement was “limited“ — while the United States was conducting seventy-five percent of all aerial refuelling sorties and seventy percent of the operation’s intelligence and surveillance.²¹ In his first term, Trump struck Syria without authorisation and assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, calling it a defensive action.²²

Each violation made the next one easier. Each congressional failure to act was read by the executive as permission. Each creative legal fiction — “police action,” “kinetic military action,” “consistent with the War Powers Resolution” — expanded the zone of presidential authority until the exception became the rule.

But what is happening in Iran is not another incremental expansion. It is the pattern’s logical endpoint.

On the twenty-eighth of February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a full-scale military campaign against a sovereign nation. The operation — designated “Epic Fury” — has included the sustained bombing of military and civilian infrastructure, the assassination of a head of state, the destruction of a nation’s economic lifeline, and the explicit pursuit of regime change. The President has stated that military operations could continue for four to five weeks or longer.²³ Thirteen American service members are dead. Over a hundred and forty have been wounded.²⁴ This is not a limited engagement. It is a war by any definition the Founders would have recognised.

And Congress did not authorise it.

Trump’s war powers report, submitted to Congress on the second of March, relies on the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution — his power as Commander in Chief.²⁵ It does not invoke the 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which covers al-Qaeda and the Taliban and has no application to Iran. It does not invoke the 2002 Iraq AUMF, which was repealed. It does not invoke any statutory authorisation at all, because none exists. The legal basis for this war is the President’s assertion that he has the inherent constitutional authority to launch it. Nothing more.

Constitutional scholars across the political spectrum have rejected this claim. Oona Hathaway, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and former special counsel at the Department of Defense, has called the strikes “blatantly illegal” and stated that for the president to make the decision to go to war “unilaterally, without going to the Security Council, without going to Congress, and putting U.S. troops and allies at risk is really extraordinary and clearly unlawful.”²⁶ Iran did not attack the United States. The strikes of the twenty-eighth of February were not defensive. They were offensive, pre-planned, and launched while diplomatic negotiations were still underway. Even under the most permissive reading of Article II — the Office of Legal Counsel’s own framework, which allows presidential action where it serves “sufficiently important national interests” and does not constitute a “prolonged and substantial military engagement”²⁷ — a weeks-long bombing campaign that has killed a head of state and destabilised an entire region cannot plausibly be called limited.

Congress had the tools to stop this. The War Powers Resolution provides a fast-track process for exactly this situation. On the fourth of March, the Senate voted on a resolution that would have required the President to obtain congressional authorisation for further military action in Iran. It failed, 47 to 53, along party lines.²⁸ The following day, the House voted on a similar resolution. It failed, 212 to 219.²⁹ Congress did not authorise this war. But it also refused to end it. The effect is the same as Truman’s Korea: silence read as consent, and consent treated as authorisation.

This is what eighty-three years of erosion produces. A president can now launch a full-scale war against a sovereign nation, kill its head of state, bomb its economic infrastructure, pursue regime change, and lose American service members in the process — all without a single vote of Congress authorising the action. The constitutional power to declare war has not been repealed. It has been abandoned. Not by amendment, not by judicial decision, but by the slow, bipartisan accumulation of precedents, each one a little larger than the last, until the original design is unrecognisable.

Every one of those thirteen dead service members swore an oath. The same oath every American in uniform takes: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They kept their oath. The question is whether the government that sent them to die kept its.

International Law

The constitutional case is damning. The international case is worse.

The United States did not build the post-war international legal order by accident. It built it deliberately, after two world wars had demonstrated what happens when powerful nations treat the sovereignty of weaker nations as optional. The United Nations Charter, signed in San Francisco in 1945, was America’s answer to the catastrophe of the first half of the twentieth century. Its foundational principle is simple: states do not get to bomb other states.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.³⁰ There are exactly two exceptions. The first is authorisation by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII.³¹ The second is self-defence under Article 51, which preserves “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.”³²

Neither exception applies to the war in Iran.

No Security Council resolution authorised the strikes of the twenty-eighth of February. None was sought. None could have been obtained — Russia and China would have vetoed any such resolution, and the United States knew it. The multilateral framework that America itself designed to legitimise the use of force was simply bypassed.

The self-defence argument fails on its own terms. Article 51 requires an armed attack — or, under the most expansive interpretation, an imminent one. Iran did not attack the United States. Iran did not attack Israel. Iran was, at the time the strikes were launched, engaged in diplomatic negotiations with the United States through Omani mediation. The standard for anticipatory self-defence in customary international law — the Caroline Doctrine, formulated in 1837 and reaffirmed at Nuremberg — requires that the necessity of self-defence be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”³³ A pre-planned military campaign launched two days after the most intensive round of diplomatic negotiations does not meet this standard. It does not come close.

The administration has pointed to Iran’s nuclear programme, its ballistic missile development, and its support for proxy forces as justifications for the strikes.³⁴ These are grievances. They may even be legitimate grievances. But under international law, grievances — however serious — do not authorise the use of force. If they did, any nation with a sufficiently long list of complaints about its neighbour could bomb it at will. The prohibition on the use of force exists precisely to prevent powerful states from acting as judge, jury, and executioner against weaker ones. The United States understood this in 1945. It wrote the rule.

The distinction between preventive war and pre-emptive self-defence matters here, and the administration has blurred it deliberately. Pre-emptive self-defence — striking first when an attack is genuinely imminent — has a narrow and contested legal basis. Preventive war — striking to eliminate a potential future threat — has none. The International Court of Justice has never endorsed it. The UN Charter does not permit it. The Nuremberg Tribunal, at which the United States served as chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes, classified the waging of aggressive war as “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”³⁵ That language was not directed at a hypothetical. It was directed at states that launched wars of choice against sovereign nations.

The international response has confirmed the illegality, even in unprecedented fashion among traditional allies. French President Emmanuel Macron stated on the fourth of March that the strikes were conducted “outside the framework of international law, which we cannot approve.”³⁶ Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected the strikes outright, refused the use of Spanish military bases, and called the war an escalation that “contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.”³⁷ Trump threatened to cut off all trade with Spain in response.³⁸ British Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially refused to allow UK bases to be used for offensive operations — a decision that drew public criticism from Trump, who said it took “far too long.” Starmer reversed his position on the first of March, citing the need to protect three hundred thousand British civilians in the region and to defend allied countries under Iranian retaliation. Hours later, a drone struck RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. The UK Ministry of Defence later confirmed the drone was not launched from Iran — it was likely fired by Hezbollah from Lebanon, caused minimal damage, and produced no casualties.³⁹ Nonetheless, Starmer used the strike and the broader threat to British lives to justify opening Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford to US bombers for supposedly ‘defensive’ strikes on Iranian missile sites. Russia called the strikes “a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression” and “a betrayal of diplomacy.”⁴⁰ China’s Foreign Ministry stated that the strikes “have no UN Security Council authorization and violate international law,” while Foreign Minister Wang Yi called it “unacceptable for the U.S. and Israel to launch attacks against Iran in the process of the ongoing Iran-U.S. negotiations, still less to blatantly attack and kill the leader of a sovereign country.”⁴¹ Switzerland accused the United States and Israel of violating international law.⁴² Norway emphasised the illegality of the war.⁴³ At the UN Security Council, China’s ambassador declared the conflict had “neither legitimacy nor legal basis.”⁴⁴ A hundred and thirty-five countries co-sponsored a Security Council resolution on the crisis — reportedly the largest number of co-sponsors in Security Council history.⁴⁵ The European Council on Foreign Relations concluded that there is “little question that the US and Israeli war against Iran is an unlawful act of aggression” and noted that “no European leader has argued the war is lawful.”⁴⁶ Professor Mohamed Arafa, writing in JURIST, described the strikes as violations of “both US constitutional law and foundational international norms, setting a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive war-making.”⁴⁷

No allied government has called this war legal. No adversarial government has called it legal. No neutral government has called it legal. Not one.

And the proportionality question compounds the illegality. Even if one were to accept — for the sake of argument — that some limited defensive action against Iranian military assets could be justified, the scope of Operation Epic Fury obliterates any proportionality defence. This is not a targeted strike on a missile launcher. It is a sustained bombing campaign that has killed over fourteen hundred people, destroyed ten thousand homes in Tehran alone, struck a girls’ school, assassinated a head of state, bombed civilian economic infrastructure, and pursued explicit regime change. The principle of proportionality under international humanitarian law requires that the harm to civilians not be excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated.⁴⁸ A campaign that bombs an oil terminal “just for fun” is not calibrating proportionality. It has abandoned the concept entirely.

The law is not ambiguous. The United States waged aggressive war against a sovereign nation without Security Council authorisation, without an armed attack to trigger self-defence, without imminence, and without proportionality. It did so while negotiations were underway. It did so against the explicit objections of its closest European allies. And it did so in violation of the legal order that the United States itself created to prevent exactly this from happening.

What is being demonstrated in Iran is not a modern exercise of power. It is a sixteenth-century mindset operating with twenty-first-century weapons — the logic of conquest dressed in the language of counterterrorism. The international legal order was built to move humanity past that logic. If it can be discarded whenever a sufficiently powerful state decides a sufficiently villainous regime deserves it, then it was never law at all. It was permission — granted by the strong to themselves, and revocable at will.

Share

The Precedent

There is a question that runs beneath the legal arguments — beneath the constitutional text and the UN Charter and the Caroline Doctrine and the Nuremberg judgment. It is the question that the people cheering this war have not asked, because asking it would require them to think past the next news cycle.

The question is: what happens when it is your turn?

International law is not an abstraction that exists to protect distant countries and foreign people. It is the infrastructure that protects everyone — including the nation that is currently powerful enough to ignore it.

This is not a foreign concept imposed on the United States from outside. It is the foundational American idea — taken to its logical international conclusion. Aristotle said it first: “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”⁴⁹ Thomas Paine, in Common Sense, made it the cornerstone of the American revolution: “In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”⁵⁰ John Adams enshrined it in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 as “a government of laws, and not of men” — a phrase that became one of the foundational principles of American constitutional theory.⁵¹ The post-war international legal order was nothing more than the extension of this principle beyond national borders: the belief that relations between states, like relations between citizens, should be governed by law rather than by the will of the most powerful. The United States did not merely sign that order. It authored it. And it was this — not the aircraft carriers, not the nuclear arsenal, not the size of the economy — that made the world look up to America after 1945. The idea that the most powerful nation on earth would voluntarily submit itself to the same rules it asked others to follow. That was the source of American moral authority. I still have friends in Europe who believe in this vision of America — who grew up admiring what it represented, not what it could destroy. What is happening in Iran is the author tearing up its own manuscript, and with it, the reason anyone ever looked up to it in the first place. The prohibition on aggressive war does not exist because Iran deserves protection. It exists because the alternative — a world in which any state strong enough to bomb another state may do so whenever it decides the cause is sufficient — is a world in which no state is safe. Not even the strongest one. Especially not the strongest one, because the strongest one has the most enemies and the most to lose when the rules collapse.

The person cheering the bombing of Tehran today is the person who will need international law tomorrow. They will need it when a rising power decides that American military bases on its border constitute an intolerable provocation. They will need it when an adversary concludes that American sanctions amount to economic warfare justifying a military response. They will need it when the precedent set by Operation Epic Fury — that a sufficiently powerful state may launch a war of regime change against a sovereign nation without legal authorisation, while negotiations are still underway — is cited by someone else, against someone else, in a conflict that does not serve American interests. Precedents do not belong to the nations that set them. They belong to everyone who comes after.

And there is a darker question that no one in Washington seems willing to ask. The United States has now established that a sufficiently powerful state may assassinate another nation’s head of state as part of a campaign of regime change. What happens when America is no longer the most powerful state in the room? What happens when decades of military adventurism, economic overextension, and the slow erosion of alliances have weakened the republic to the point where another power — or a coalition of powers — decides that the American government itself constitutes a threat requiring removal? The protocols exist to prevent a decapitation strike on American leadership. But protocols are technical solutions to a problem that is, at its root, political. The real protection was never the bunkers or the continuity-of-government plans. It was the norm — the international consensus that heads of state are not legitimate military targets, that sovereignty means something, that regime change by force is the one thing powerful nations agreed not to do to each other. That norm is now in ruins. The United States shattered it. And the shards do not care who picks them up.

This is not speculation. It is the lesson of every international order that has ever been dismantled by the nation that built it. Rome did not fall to barbarians at the gates. It fell because it had spent centuries treating its own rules as optional — applying them to its subjects while exempting itself — until the rules meant nothing and there was no structure left to hold the empire together. The post-war order that the United States built in 1945 was designed to prevent precisely this cycle. And it worked — imperfectly, inconsistently, with glaring failures and shameful exceptions — but it worked well enough to prevent a third world war for eighty years. What is being tested in Iran is not whether the ayatollahs survive. It is whether that order survives. And if it does not, the nation that will suffer most from its collapse is the one that is currently tearing it apart.

The people who have abandoned their respect for law — who have decided that the rules are a constraint on American power rather than a foundation of American security — have made a calculation. They have calculated that the United States will always be the strongest. That no coalition will ever form against it. That no precedent it sets will ever be turned against it. That is not a strategic assessment. It is a fantasy. And it is the same fantasy that every empire in history has entertained in the years before it discovered that the rules it broke were the ones holding it up.

And here is where the legal case and the moral case converge into something that should keep every honest observer awake at night.

On the twenty-fifth of February 2026, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated publicly that a “historic” agreement with the United States to avert military conflict was “within reach.”⁵² On the twenty-sixth of February, a third round of indirect talks took place in Geneva, mediated by Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi. On the twenty-seventh of February — one day before the strikes began — Al Busaidi appeared on CBS News and told the American people that a “peace deal is within our reach.”⁵³ He disclosed that Iran had agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium, to downgrade its existing stockpiles to the lowest level possible, and to submit to full verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. He called it “a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved in previous rounds of negotiations.”⁵⁴ This was not an Obama-era concession being reheated. This was a commitment that went beyond what the JCPOA had secured — zero stockpiling, full IAEA verification, irreversible downgrading of enriched uranium. It was, by any honest measure, a diplomatic victory for the Trump administration. The President had a win on the table. Additional talks were scheduled for the following Monday in Vienna.

They never took place. On the twenty-eighth of February, the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury.

Oman’s foreign minister — the man who had spent weeks shuttling between the two sides, who had staked his country’s credibility on the negotiations — later said that the war was not prompted by an imminent threat. It was “solely an attempt to reorder the Middle East in Israel’s favour.”⁵⁵ Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesperson called the strikes “an attack on the very principle of mediation.”⁵⁶

Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, noted the unprecedented nature of Al Busaidi’s CBS appearance and suggested that the Omani foreign minister went public deliberately — “so that the American people knew that peace was within reach when Trump instead opted for war.”⁵⁷

Only twenty-one percent of Americans supported initiating an attack on Iran.⁵⁸ The negotiations were producing results that went beyond what the Obama-era JCPOA had achieved. Iran was at the table. The mediator was telling the world that a deal was close. And the President of the United States chose war anyway.

This is not a story about law in the abstract. It is a story about thirteen families who will never be whole again, about fourteen hundred Iranian dead who did not choose this war, about a school full of girls between the ages of seven and twelve who were alive on the morning of the twenty-eighth of February and dead by the afternoon. It is a story about a world that built rules to prevent exactly this, and a nation that decided the rules did not apply to it.

The law is not ambiguous. The war is illegal. The question is whether that still means anything — and if it does not, what we have become.

The legal case is clear. But law alone has never stopped a war that enough people wanted. Millions of Americans support this one, and they have reasons — the nuclear threat, the theological mandate, the media narrative, the political calculation. In Part Two, we examine each of those reasons on its own terms.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that's how the fire spreads.

Share

If you found this valuable, please support me with a like, share, or Subscribe.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

terms.

Endnotes

¹ Trump interview with NBC News, 15 March 2026. Trump stated that US forces had struck Kharg Island and added, “we may hit it a few more times just for fun.” Reported by NPR, CNN, and others.

² As of 16 March 2026, thirteen US service members have been killed in Operation Epic Fury: seven by enemy action, six in a KC-135 crash under investigation. An additional service member, Major Sorffly Davius, 46, died of a medical incident at Camp Buehring, Kuwait. Approximately 140 have been wounded, eight severely. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell confirmed the figures to TIME on 10 March 2026.

³ US Central Command statement, 1 March 2026. The drone struck a tactical operations centre at Port Shuaiba, Kuwait. All six soldiers were assigned to the 103rd Sustainment Command, Army Reserve, Des Moines, Iowa.

⁴ Retired US Army Colonel Josef Sujet, then chief of staff of the 103rd Sustainment Command, told CNN that four of the six soldiers had previously served together in Kuwait in 2019. CNN, “Many of the six US troops killed in the war with Iran served together years earlier in Kuwait,” 6 March 2026.

⁵ Soldier identifications, biographical details, and family statements drawn from: Pentagon identification statements, 4–5 March 2026; NPR, “Iran war: Pentagon ID’s last 2 of the 6 U.S. soldiers killed in Kuwait attack,” 4 March 2026; CBS News, “Pentagon releases names of 6 U.S. Army Reserve soldiers killed during the ongoing war with Iran,” 4 March 2026; CNN, “Many of the six US troops killed in the war with Iran served together years earlier in Kuwait,” 6 March 2026; NBC News, “What we know about the U.S. service members killed in the Iran war,” 5 March 2026.

⁶ CNN, “Seventh US service member killed in Iran war is identified as Army sergeant,” 8 March 2026. Pennington was assigned to 1st Space Battalion, 1st Space Brigade, Fort Carson, Colorado. He was wounded at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, on 1 March and died on 8 March.

⁷ US Central Command statement, 13 March 2026. The KC-135 Stratotanker crashed in western Iraq during Operation Epic Fury. Call sign: Zeus 95. The crash involved two aircraft; the second landed safely. CENTCOM stated the loss was not due to hostile or friendly fire. The incident is under investigation. An Iranian proxy group claimed responsibility but provided no evidence.

⁸ Crew identifications and biographical details drawn from: Pentagon identification statement, 14 March 2026; Air & Space Forces Magazine, “Six Airmen Dead in KC-135 Crash During Iran Ops,” 15 March 2026; CNN, “Pentagon identifies six airmen killed in plane crash in Iraq,” 14 March 2026; Military Times, “Pentagon identifies six airmen killed in KC-135 crash in Iraq,” 15 March 2026. Klinner’s family details from GoFundMe page and family statements reported by CNN and Times of Israel.

⁹ Iran’s Health Ministry figures as reported by Al Jazeera, “Iran war: What is happening on day 16 of US-Israel attacks?” 15 March 2026. Tehran damage figure from Tehran’s governor, reported in the same article.

¹⁰ The strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, Hormozgan province, occurred on 28 February 2026. Iranian authorities reported 175 killed; the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights stated victims were mainly girls aged between 7 and 12. Multiple investigations — by the New York Times, NPR, BBC Verify, CNN, and Al Jazeera — concluded the United States was likely responsible, with evidence pointing to a US Tomahawk cruise missile. A preliminary Pentagon investigation determined the strike resulted from outdated targeting coordinates provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Sources: UN OHCHR press release, 3 March 2026; CNN, “US strike likely hit school in Minab, Iran due to outdated intelligence,” 11 March 2026; NPR, “Pentagon probe points to U.S. missile hitting Iranian school,” 11 March 2026; TIME, “More Than 100 School Children Were Killed in Iran. Evidence Points to a U.S. Missile Strike,” 11 March 2026.

¹¹ Al Jazeera, “Iran war: What is happening on day 16 of US-Israel attacks?” 15 March 2026, citing Secretary of War Hegseth’s claim that more than 15,000 “enemy targets” had been struck.

¹² White House video game footage: ABC News, “White House posts so-called ‘hype’ videos combining real Iran war footage alongside movie, video game clips,” 7 March 2026; CNN, “White House posts video about Iran strikes using ‘Call of Duty’ video game footage,” 5 March 2026; Truthout, “White House Propaganda Videos Splice Horrific Iran War Footage With Video Games,” 7 March 2026; France 24, “White House releases video montages gamifying Iran war on social media,” 7 March 2026; Courthouse News Service, “’Not on the bingo card’: Use of Call of Duty footage for Iran war hype raises eyebrows,” 5 March 2026; Axios, “How America gamified its war with Iran,” 14 March 2026.

¹³ See endnote 10. The White House videos were posted between 5 and 7 March 2026. Secretary of War Hegseth announced a formal investigation into the Minab school strike on 13 March 2026. Fox News, “Hegseth announces probe of US role in strike at girls school in Minab, Iran,” 13 March 2026.

¹⁴ Senator Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth), X post, 6 March 2026, quote-tweeting the White House account’s “JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY” video.

¹⁵ UNICEF estimated that sanctions on Iraq contributed to the deaths of approximately 500,000 children under five between 1991 and 1998. The figure has been debated by scholars, but the broad consensus is that sanctions caused mass civilian suffering while the regime remained intact. See: UNICEF, “Child and Maternal Mortality Survey 1999”; Richard Garfield, “Morbidity and Mortality among Iraqi Children from 1990 through 1998,” Fourth Freedom Forum, 1999.

¹⁶ Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, Article 33: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

¹⁷ The United States declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania on 5 June 1942, the final formal declarations of war issued by Congress. See: National Archives, “Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force.”

¹⁸ Korean War casualty figures from the Department of Defense, Defense Casualty Analysis System.

¹⁹ The Gulf of Tonkin incident of 4 August 1964 — the alleged second attack on the USS Maddox — was later determined to have likely not occurred. The NSA’s own declassified internal history, published in 2005, concluded that the signals intelligence used to justify the resolution was flawed. See: Robert J. Hanyok, “Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2–4 August 1964,” Cryptologic Quarterly, declassified 2005.

²⁰ War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548, enacted 7 November 1973 over President Nixon’s veto.

²¹ US involvement in the 2011 Libya intervention: the seventy-five percent aerial refuelling and seventy percent intelligence figures are from congressional testimony and Department of Defense reporting, as cited in the War Powers Resolution article on Wikipedia and PBS reporting. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in March 2011 that the administration did not need congressional authorisation. Obama’s characterisation of the operation as not constituting “hostilities” was widely reported.

²² Trump ordered airstrikes on Syria in April 2017 and April 2018 without congressional authorisation. The assassination of General Qasem Soleimani occurred on 3 January 2020 at Baghdad International Airport. Trump cited the 2002 Iraq AUMF and Article II authority. See: Oona Hathaway, “The Soleimani Strike Defied the U.S. Constitution,” The Atlantic, 4 January 2020.

²³ Trump stated on 3 March 2026 that military operations could last “four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.” NPR, “6 U.S. soldiers have been killed as the war with Iran further engulfs the region,” 2 March 2026.

²⁴ Casualty and wounded figures confirmed by Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell to TIME, 10 March 2026. TIME, “What We Know About the U.S. Service Members Killed in the Iran War,” 10 March 2026.

²⁵ Lawfare, “The Law of Going to War with Iran, Redux,” March 2026. The article confirms that Trump’s 2 March war powers report relies on Article II authority alone, not any statutory enactment such as the 2001 AUMF. The 2002 Iraq AUMF was repealed in 2024.

²⁶ Hathaway called the strikes “blatantly illegal” in an X post on 28 February 2026, reported by FactCheck.org, “Legality of Latest Iran Attack in Question,” March 2026, and the Yale Daily News. Her extended quote — “For the president to make that decision unilaterally, without going to the Security Council, without going to Congress, and putting U.S. troops and allies at risk is really extraordinary and clearly unlawful” — from The New Republic, “Congress Won’t Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn’t Make Them Legal,” June 2025, addressing the earlier Twelve-Day War strikes but with legal analysis applying with greater force to the February 2026 campaign. See also: The Hill, “Trump’s murky legal landscape on attacking Iran,” March 2026.

²⁷ The Office of Legal Counsel framework — allowing presidential use of force where it serves “sufficiently important national interests” and does not constitute a “prolonged and substantial military engagement” — is discussed in Lawfare, “The Law of Going to War with Iran, Redux,” March 2026, and in FactCheck.org, “Legality of Latest Iran Attack in Question,” March 2026.

²⁸ Constitution Center, “Does the War Powers Resolution debate take on a new context in the Iran conflict?” March 2026. The Senate rejected the war powers resolution 47–53 on 4 March 2026.

²⁹ Al Jazeera, “US House narrowly rejects resolution to end Trump’s Iran war,” 5 March 2026. The House voted 219–212 against the resolution.

³⁰ Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

³¹ Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, Articles 39–51.

³² Charter of the United Nations, Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

³³ The Caroline test, formulated in diplomatic correspondence between US Secretary of State Daniel Webster and British envoy Lord Ashburton in 1842, following the destruction of the American steamboat Caroline in 1837. Webster stated that a self-defence claimant must show “a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The standard was reaffirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal. See: Yale Law School Avalon Project, “British-American Diplomacy: The Caroline Case.”

³⁴ Trump’s war powers report to Congress, 2 March 2026, stated that strikes were undertaken “to protect United States forces in the region, protect the United States homeland, advance vital United States national interests, including ensuring the free flow of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, and in collective self-defense of our regional allies, including Israel.” Reported by FactCheck.org, “Legality of Latest Iran Attack in Question,” March 2026.

³⁵ International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Judgment, 1 October 1946: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

³⁶ Macron’s televised address, 4 March 2026: “The United States of America and Israel have decided to launch military operations, conducted outside of international law, which we cannot approve.” Reported by Al Jazeera, “France walks ‘fine line’ as US-Israel war on Iran escalates,” 12 March 2026; Ynet News, “Macron slams US-Israeli strikes on Iran, sends flagship aircraft carrier to Middle East,” 4 March 2026; The Telegraph via Yahoo News, “Macron: Strikes against Iran are illegal,” 4 March 2026.

³⁷ Sánchez statement on X, 28 February 2026, rejecting “the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.” Spain refused the use of Spanish military bases for strikes on Iran. Reported by Reuters via NewsNation, “World leaders react to Iran military strikes,” 28 February 2026; European Council on Foreign Relations, “War over law: Europe’s unforced errors over the use of force in Iran,” 12 March 2026.

³⁸ Trump stated on 4 March 2026 that he had ordered his Treasury chief to look into cutting “off all trade” with Spain. Reported by The Telegraph via Yahoo News, “Macron: Strikes against Iran are illegal,” 4 March 2026.

³⁹ Starmer initially refused to allow UK bases to be used for offensive action, a decision Trump publicly criticised. He reversed on 1 March, citing the protection of 300,000 British civilians and allied countries under attack. The drone strike on RAF Akrotiri occurred hours later, shortly after midnight on 2 March. The UK Ministry of Defence confirmed the Shahed-type drone was not launched from Iran; officials believe it was fired from Lebanon by Hezbollah. It caused minimal damage and no casualties. Sources: TIME, “British Base Hit in Cyprus, Drones Downed as Iran War Widens,” 2 March 2026; Middle East Eye, “UK says drone attack on Cyprus base was not launched from Iran,” 5 March 2026; Al Jazeera, “Starmer lets US use bases for Iran clash: UK’s military, legal quagmire,” 2 March 2026; Wikipedia, “United Kingdom involvement in the 2026 Iran war,” accessed 16 March 2026; House of Commons Library, “US-Israel strikes on Iran: February/March 2026,” research briefing, March 2026.

⁴⁰ Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council emergency session, 1 March 2026, called the strikes “a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent Member State, in violation of the UN Charter and international law” and “a betrayal of diplomacy.” UN News, “Iran strikes ‘squandered a chance for diplomacy’: Guterres,” 1 March 2026; Security Council Report, “Emergency Meeting on the Military Escalation in the Middle East,” 28 February 2026.

⁴¹ Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning stated on 2 March 2026 that “the U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran have no UN Security Council authorization and violate international law.” Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated it was “unacceptable for the U.S. and Israel to launch attacks against Iran in the process of the ongoing Iran-U.S. negotiations, still less to blatantly attack and kill the leader of a sovereign country and instigate government change.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, press conferences of 2 and 3 March 2026.

⁴² Swiss Defence Minister Martin Pfister, interview with SonntagsZeitung, 8 March 2026: “The Federal Council is of the opinion that the attack on Iran constitutes a violation of international law. In our view it constitutes a violation on the prohibition of violence.” Reuters, “Iran attacks breach international law, Swiss Defence Minister says,” 8 March 2026.

⁴³ European Council on Foreign Relations, “War over law: Europe’s unforced errors over the use of force in Iran,” 12 March 2026, noting that “Norway’s government has also emphasised the illegality of the war.”

⁴⁴ China’s Ambassador Zhang Jun at the UN Security Council, as reported by Al Jazeera, “UN Security Council adopts resolution condemning Iran’s attacks in the Gulf,” 12 March 2026: the conflict had “neither legitimacy nor legal basis.”

⁴⁵ Al Jazeera, “UN Security Council adopts resolution condemning Iran’s attacks in the Gulf,” 12 March 2026. Al Jazeera’s correspondent noted that 135 countries co-sponsored the resolution, described as “the largest number of countries ever to cosponsor a Security Council draft resolution.”

⁴⁶ European Council on Foreign Relations, “War over law: Europe’s unforced errors over the use of force in Iran,” 12 March 2026. The analysis stated: “There is little question that the US and Israeli war against Iran is an unlawful act of aggression. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except when authorised by the Security Council or in cases of self-defence against an armed attack. There is overwhelming agreement among legal scholars that neither of those applies in this case. No European leader has argued the war is lawful.”

⁴⁷ Professor Mohamed Arafa, “No Authorization, No Imminence, No Plan: The Iran Strikes and the Rule of Law,” JURIST, March 2026.

⁴⁸ The principle of proportionality in international humanitarian law is codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), Article 51(5)(b), which prohibits attacks “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”

⁴⁹ Aristotle, Politics, Book III, Chapter 16.

⁵⁰ Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776).

⁵¹ Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Part the First, Article XXX, drafted by John Adams: “In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”

⁵² Al Jazeera, “Iran’s FM says deal with US ‘within reach’; Trump says he’s ‘not happy’ with talks,” 25 February 2026. Araghchi stated that the “historic opportunity to strike an unprecedented agreement” would depend on whether “diplomacy is given priority.”

⁵³ CBS News, “U.S.-Iran deal is ‘within our reach,’ Omani mediator says,” 27 February 2026. Al Busaidi appeared on “Face the Nation” and stated: “I can see that the peace deal is within our reach… if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there.”

⁵⁴ Ibid. Al Busaidi disclosed that Iran had committed to “never, ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb,” that existing stockpiles would be “blended to the lowest level possible” and “converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible,” and that Iran would grant the IAEA “full access” for verification. He called this “something that is not in the old deal” and “a very important breakthrough.” See also: Al Jazeera, “Peace ‘within reach’ as Iran agrees no nuclear material stockpile: Oman FM,” 28 February 2026; Common Dreams, “Oman’s Foreign Minister Said US-Iran Deal Was ‘Within Our Reach.’ Then Trump Started Bombing,” 1 March 2026.

⁵⁵ Al Jazeera, “Oman renews push for diplomacy, says ‘off-ramps available’ in Iran war,” 3 March 2026. Al Busaidi pushed back on the Trump administration’s characterisation of an “imminent threat” and maintained that “significant progress” had been made before the strikes. The characterisation of the war as an attempt to reorder the Middle East in Israel’s favour is from Wikipedia, “2025–2026 Iran–United States negotiations,” citing Al Busaidi’s post-war comments, accessed 16 March 2026.

⁵⁶ Al Jazeera, “Oman renews push for diplomacy, says ‘off-ramps available’ in Iran war,” 3 March 2026. Majed al-Ansari, spokesperson for Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, made the statement following Iranian retaliatory strikes on Omani territory.

⁵⁷ Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, quoted in Common Dreams, “Oman’s Foreign Minister Said US-Iran Deal Was ‘Within Our Reach.’ Then Trump Started Bombing,” 1 March 2026.

⁵⁸ Common Dreams, ibid., citing a survey released in February 2026 showing twenty-one percent support for initiating an attack on Iran “under the current circumstances.”