For decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has invested heavily in shaping a narrative of moral authority. It presents itself as the defender of Muslims, the champion of Palestinian rights, and a force standing against injustice.
But when we look beyond the slogans, a very different reality emerges. What the Islamic Republic says and what it does are often in direct contradiction.
This is not just politics. It is a pattern of lies, double standards, and calculated hypocrisy. The Islamic Republic’s power does not rely on strength alone. It relies on narrative, a carefully constructed image that presents it as a force of justice while masking a pattern of contradiction.
A Propaganda Machine Built on Contradictions
The Islamic Republic’s media machine is one of its most effective tools. From state television to coordinated social media messaging, it projects strength, defiance, and moral superiority. But the contradictions are clear.
Recent official statements have described US actions affecting ports and maritime activity as illegal and even comparable to piracy. Yet for years, the same regime has threatened to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz and used this threat as leverage against the global economy. It condemns what it has long relied on as a strategy.
At the same time, its propaganda continues to project strength while masking internal weaknesses. Pro-regime rallies are amplified, often featuring foreign militia supporters, while dissent inside Iran is suppressed.
Narratives of expansion, including threats toward Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, circulate openly in regime aligned discourse. This is not strength. It is narrative control.
Anti-America Rhetoric, Western Privilege
Perhaps one of the clearest examples of hypocrisy is the Islamic Republic’s constant anti-American rhetoric. For decades, the United States has been labelled “the Great Satan.” Anti-American sentiment is deeply embedded in the regime’s messaging, repeated across its institutions, media, and political discourse.
This rhetoric is not limited to speeches. It is institutionalised. From school classrooms to public spaces, slogans such as “Death to America” are embedded in education and displayed across wall murals throughout Iran.
This is not spontaneous sentiment. It is state-driven messaging repeated across generations. Yet at the same time, many children and close relatives of senior Iranian officials live, study, and build their lives in the United States.
This contradiction is striking. If the United States represents everything the regime claims it does, then why are their own families drawn to it? Why seek education, opportunity, and stability in a country their parents publicly demonise?
Concrete examples make this impossible to ignore. Masoumeh Ebtekar, a former Vice President of Iran and the English-speaking spokesperson for the armed group that seized the U.S. embassy in 1979 and took American diplomats hostage, was directly associated with one of the most serious acts against American diplomats. Today, her son and daughter-in-law reside in the United States.
Similarly, the daughter of Ali Larijani, a former Speaker of Parliament and Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, one of the regime’s most senior security figures until he was killed in recent strikes, has reportedly lived and studied in the United States.
These are not isolated cases. They reflect a broader pattern. Education and life in the United States are not just matters of convenience, they reflect trust in its institutions, its opportunities, and its academic excellence.
This is why recent steps by US authorities to review and revoke residency permits for individuals linked to senior regime figures are justified. Those connected to a system that promotes hostility and destabilisation should not be treated differently simply because they are not directly in official positions.
There is also a broader concern. Individuals raised within this ideological environment may carry and promote the same narratives abroad, while notably failing to condemn the actions of the regime their parents represent, including its deeply rooted hostility toward the United States.
Why should they benefit from the very system their parents publicly condemn, while remaining silent on the ideology that promotes hostility toward it?
This is hypocrisy in its clearest form.
Palestine and Selective Narratives
The Islamic Republic consistently claims to defend Palestinian rights. But what has it offered beyond escalation? While Gulf states have provided decades of humanitarian and financial support, Iran’s involvement has often contributed to cycles of confrontation rather than sustainable outcomes. Supporting a cause should not mean exploiting it for influence.
In contrast, countries in the Gulf have taken a different approach. Through the Abraham Accords, Bahrain and the UAE chose to open channels of communication with Israel, not as a rejection of the Palestinian cause, but as an attempt to create pathways toward stability, dialogue, and long-term solutions. This reflects a fundamentally different mindset, one that prioritises engagement and practical outcomes over slogans and perpetual confrontation.
The Reality Behind the “Defender of Muslims” Narrative
The Islamic Republic has convinced many that it stands as a defender of Muslims. But its actions tell a different story. Across Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, Iran has exported conflict through militias, with Arabs paying the price.
In Syria, it supported the Assad regime through a brutal conflict. In Yemen, it fuelled instability through indoctrination and support for the Houthis. In Lebanon, Hezbollah helped push the country into crisis. These are not the actions of a defender. They are the actions of a state exporting conflict.
Exploiting Movements and Public Sentiment
The Islamic Republic has been highly effective at inserting itself into broader political and emotional movements. This is visible in parts of the pro-Palestine movement globally. While the cause itself is legitimate, some elements within these spaces adopt or tolerate Islamic Republic symbols and narratives without acknowledging the regime’s own record.
This contradiction is especially visible in Europe, including in London, where some pro-Palestine protests have tolerated or even embraced Iranian flags and regime narratives, while Iranian opposition voices protesting dictatorship, repression, and the killing of their own people receive far less attention. In contrast, many Iranian protesters abroad have raised the Israeli flag, as a form of defiance against the regime that claims to speak in their name.
The growing use of political symbols on both sides risks distorting legitimate causes and turning them into platforms for division rather than justice. Such symbolism often spreads hostility and undermines the credibility of the very causes they claim to represent.
A movement that speaks the language of freedom cannot ignore the suffering of Iranians while normalising the symbols of the regime that oppresses them. This does not define the entire pro-Palestine movement, but it clearly shows how effectively the Islamic Republic exploits causes for its own image and influence.
The same pattern appears elsewhere. Some voices that loudly condemn the United States today are the very same people who were comfortable with American intervention when it served their interests, especially in Iraq in 2003. They run to the United States for help when it suits them, then turn around and spread anti-American slogans.
This is not principle. It is opportunism shaped by years of narrative influence, and one of the clearest signs of how deeply the Islamic Republic’s propaganda machine has distorted political thinking in parts of the Arab world.
The Gulf Sees Through It
In the Gulf, these narratives have far less impact. In countries like Bahrain, UAE and Kuwait, networks linked to the Islamic Republic have been exposed, reinforcing public awareness of the risks. This awareness is shaped by experience, exposure to real threats and by societies that prioritise stability, development, and loyalty to their own nations over ideological agendas. The overwhelming majority of citizens understand the threat. A true Khaleeji is loyal to his country and region, not to external narratives.
The Islamic Republic has spent decades building an image of resistance and moral authority. But its record tells a completely different story. A story of contradictions, exploitation, and narratives that collapse under scrutiny. This is not a state misunderstood. It is a state whose hypocrisy is increasingly visible.