Crocodile Tears for Saudi Criminals; Silence Over the Blood of Minab's Children

Mourning the attack on King Khalid Airport, while the American crime in the attack on the Minab school received a different reaction, has once again exposed the double standards in the political positions of the monarchist current.

According to Mehr reporter, when Saudi Arabia is involved, the victims are suddenly seen; But when it comes to Iranian children, political considerations take the place of sympathy. This contradiction creates a serious question against Reza Pahlavi's claim to represent the people of Iran.

In the battlefield of narratives, some people think of which narrative will end in favor of the incident before thinking about the victim. For them, human suffering is not always a human issue, but sometimes an opportunity to attack the rival, destroy the enemy and stabilize the political position. The problem begins when these same people claim to save a nation; A nation that is supposed to have a central position in their political future, but in the moment of suffering and calamity, its rights remain behind political calculations.

Reza Pahlavi's reaction to Yemen's attack on Riyadh's King Khalid Airport is an example of this contradiction. He expressed regret for the victims of this attack. Addressing the Saudi authorities, he interpreted the incident in the framework of the Islamic Republic's warmongering and destabilization of the region. The question is: Why is this human sensitivity not seen as much when it comes to the Iranian victims of American and Israeli attacks?

The problem is that selective sympathy and double standards measure the value of the victim against his or her political position and the perpetrator of the attack. If the killing of people in Riyadh is condemned, why shouldn't the lives of Minab children be defended with the same clarity? If an attack on a country's infrastructure is worrying, why shouldn't the destruction of Iran's infrastructure and harm to its people be equally important?

Minab, where the veil of political narrative is removed

The attack on Minab school and the killing of students was one of the most bitter events of the war. Children who should have been sitting in the classroom and dreaming about their future, lost their lives. The families who had sent their children to school faced the pain that no political justification can compensate for.

In such a situation, someone who claims to represent the people of Iran is expected to: defend the lives of Iranians, condemn the demand for accountability for the attack and damage to civilians. But when taking a stance on this tragedy leads to blaming the Iranian government and making claims about using people as human shields, this approach cannot be easily ignored.

Opposition to the Islamic Republic, no matter how serious it is, is not a license to downplay the responsibility of the attacker. Even if a person rejects all the policies of the Iranian government, he should still be able to have a clear position about attacking a school full of students. We cannot insist everything on the argument that since we are against the government, then the main responsibility for any disaster lies with the government itself.

This logic, more than a sign of defending the people, shows how a political position can become a filter to see or not see reality. If the victim is Iranian and the perpetrator of the attack is America or Israel, the discussion suddenly changes from the origin of the crime to a dispute with the government; But if an attack occurs in Saudi Arabia, the same person will speak sympathetically about the security of the region and the need to end instability.

Is this the standard that is supposed to be the basis of Iran's political future?

Reza Pahlavi and the policy of "Whoever is with me, whoever is against me"

Reza Pahlavi's problem is not just a message on the social network; The problem is the image that is formed from his political positions. He has been presenting himself as one of Iran's political future options for years and talks about freedom, saving the country and Iran's return to normal international relations. But these claims are tested when it comes to difficult decisions; When defending the people requires criticizing the powers that one hopes to support.

Welcoming foreign pressure against Iran without a clear answer to its human costs is questionable. It is not possible to talk about the people of Iran on the one hand, and on the other hand, to justify a war that threatens the lives of these people, just by promising political change. The people of Iran are not the means of any political current to gain power; Not a tool of the government, not a tool of opponents of the government, and not a tool of foreign governments.

If the goal is really the freedom of Iran, one should ask at what cost this freedom is supposed to be obtained and who has the right to decide on the acceptability of that cost. Do Iranian people have to be killed, their houses destroyed and their country's infrastructure damaged so that a political figure can talk about changing the government? Does supporting a foreign military attack become a defensible position simply because the attacker is an enemy of the Iranian regime?

Reza Pahlavi should answer the question, how can you claim to defend the nation, but did not demand strict and clear measures to protect the lives of Iranians against the military actions of the powers that support them? A politician who wants representation from the people cannot see only the possible outcome of a war and ignore its human costs.

Twitter, platform of sympathy or narrative production factory?

In the X social network, which many still call Twitter, a short message can become the topic of discussion among thousands of users in a few minutes. Political figures use this capacity to publish positions, direct public opinion, and establish their preferred narrative. In such an environment, the message of condolence can also become part of a political and media project beyond a human reaction.

In his message to Riyadh, Reza Pahlavi linked the attack to the policies of the Islamic Republic and used it to strengthen his narrative about the situation in the region. One point should be noted here: every political message, in addition to what it says explicitly, also gives meaning to what it omits.

When Saudi victims are at the center of the message, but Iranian victims face political justifications in the face of American and Israeli attacks, it is not just a difference in tone; The problem is the difference in the narrative framework. On the one hand, the victim is an excuse to condemn the political enemy; On the other hand, the victim may be burdened with explanations that marginalize the attacker's responsibility.

This is the point where media and audience should be alert. Widely republishing a message does not make it true; The number of followers of a politician is not a guarantee of honesty or stability of his criteria. In the war of narratives, sometimes more important than what is said is what is intentionally or unintentionally left unsaid.

The professional media should enter from this point: putting together positions, weighing claims with documents and asking questions that political currents prefer to remain unanswered. If someone sends a message of condolence to the victims of a country, but has a different position about the victims of his own country, this difference should be investigated; Not to trivialize the suffering of a group of people, but to prevent human suffering from becoming a tool for political propaganda.

Iranian people are not supposed to be in the center of his attention only when their presence is used in a political narrative. One cannot talk about a nation, but when the same nation is under attack, adjust the position with calculations related to hostility to the government. Claiming to represent the people brings responsibility; A responsibility that cannot be fulfilled by calculated messages on social networks and big slogans about the future.

Reza Pahlavi should be asked: If the attack on the Riyadh airport is condemned, do you also condemn the attack on the Minab school unconditionally? If the safety of Saudi citizens is important, is the safety of Iranian students equally important? If damage to a country's infrastructure is worrying, why shouldn't the same criterion apply to Iran? And if you welcome the war for regime change, what responsibility do you hold for the lives lost along the way?

These are not marginal questions; They are the test of the claim of someone who considers himself the owner of a special position in the political future of Iran. You cannot respond to them by repeating the slogan of freedom or accusing critics of supporting the Islamic Republic. Opposing a government is not the answer to any of these questions.

Saudi people have the right to live in security; The people of Yemen also deserve an end to suffering and war. Iranian people also have the right to be safe from military attacks, destruction of infrastructure and the killing of their children. None of these rights negates the other.

Finally, the main contradiction should be found in the behavior of those who have accused the Islamic Republic of "Arabism" for years and, relying on slogans such as "We are Aryans and do not worship Arabs", define Iranian identity in opposition to Arabs. But when it comes to political support for Saudi Arabia, apparently these noisy borders are forgotten. On the one hand, how can any sympathy with the Arabs be seen as a sign of deviation from the Iranian identity, and on the other hand, how can you send a message of sympathy to an Arab country and remain silent against its positions and policies?

The issue is neither sympathy with the Saudi people nor defense of Iranian identity; Both can be meaningful together. The problem is the use of national identity as a tool to destroy the political rival. If the criterion is being Iranian and defending the interests of the Iranian nation, this criterion should not be changed by changing political allies and enemies. The contradiction becomes more obvious when the same trend that accuses others of Arabism, abandons such considerations in front of Saudi Arabia, which sees its political support as beneficial. Perhaps the real question is this: in this debate, who is really concerned about Iranian identity and who remembers it only to the extent that it is useful for their political competition?