Summoning has the opposite effect
Summoning has the opposite effect after Iran’s recent attack on Israel. Various opinions and critiques emerged in the media space regarding the essence of the attack, its impacts, and predictions of potential future decisions by both sides of the conflict. Among these, few analysts or domestic media questioned the essence of this attack, as the Islamic Republic carried out the recent attack in response to Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus—a defensive and deterrent action that was not against international norms.
However, some journalists and media outlets attempted to examine the subsequent dimensions of the attack from various aspects and tried to address the secondary angles of the recent attack, which led to judicial confrontations. Specifically, the Tehran prosecutor’s office filed charges against journalist Abbas Abdi and the newspaper Etemad. This was in response to what was described as countering those who disrupt the psychological security of society. This judicial action followed an article titled ‘The Danger of Responding or Not Responding.’
This article was published on the 26th of Farvardin, and the Iranian attack on Israel occurred in the late hours of the 25th, meaning Abbas Abdi wrote this article when Etemad newspaper had already gone to print, and the attack had not yet begun. Therefore, there was no ill intent, and in terms of content, he tried to examine the angles of the two decisions of whether to attack or not.
Charges were also filed against Hossein Dehbashi for tweets he published, mentioning the horrors of war. He also wrote that retaliating against Israel’s attack on the consulate was inevitable and criticized those who support Israel. The prosecutor’s office also accused him of disrupting the psychological security of society.
The same accusation was repeated for media activist Yashar Soltani due to what he wrote about the rising exchange rates on the Telegram channel ‘Escannews.’ Previously, similar charges were filed against the newspaper ‘Jahan-e Sanat’ and one of its journalists. Following these charges, many media activists expressed concern about this approach towards media professionals, emphasizing a crucial point: why, in a time when the domestic environment needs unity more than ever, are judicial actions expanding due to a few analyses and the expression of personal views? Doesn’t this lead to the opposite of unity?
After the recent charges, Abbas Abdi tweeted that the continuation of these charges results in the ineffectiveness and reduced credibility of writings in defense of Iran’s attack or criticism and rejection of Israel. An independent writer will avoid writing on this matter. This is how the psychological security of society is destroyed. Abdi’s statement points to the opposite effect of recent confrontations, and journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi also wrote in his Telegram channel that apparently, the era of tolerating a certain level of freedom of expression by the government is coming to an end after the recent missile operation.
The damage and harm from such events will primarily affect the government, and I hope they reconsider. With the new policy, many writers, journalists, and media outlets trying to express their opposing or critical views peacefully and within tolerable frameworks will be forced into silence or face prosecution and imprisonment. Political activist Hossein Nouraninejad also wrote that those who have been charged were in agreement and sympathy with the recent operation.
He also mentioned that they want critics to have the right to speak as well. What can be inferred from the overall views of media activists regarding judicial confrontations is that they all speak from a single axis: in the current situation, where the Iranian people condemn the actions of the Israeli regime and there is a need for more solidarity internally, it is possible to first listen to the critics’ opinions and secondly, if possible, act upon them, otherwise, instead of comprehensive unity, a wave of pessimism will spread.
Not all issues can be resolved through the courts.
Abbas Abdi, a journalist and political analyst, is one of the individuals against whom the prosecutor’s office has filed charges. In his assessment of this decision, he told ‘Ham Mihan’ that if it weren’t a personal matter, he could speak more easily. He believes there is no problem with filing complaints against journalists or anyone else, but journalists should be ready to answer for their actions, provided that the adjudicating bodies maintain their impartiality and demonstrate it in practice.
The impartiality of institutions grants them credibility with society and trust in their handling of these issues. I think they have shown excessive sensitivity and haste on this particular topic. We should speak based on legal criteria, and an issue like disrupting the psychological security of society is not a legal criterion. Such broad and drawn-out charges do not help the country’s dire media situation. In any case, my understanding is that nothing significant has happened. This charge will be addressed and will naturally be public so that people and other colleagues are informed of the details.
He continued, just as we need to learn how to behave, others, including the public prosecutor, should also know how to react to issues. Additionally, I emphasize that not all issues can be resolved through the courts. These matters require dialogue. I don’t know what the purpose of this charge was, but I believe that prohibiting and restricting writing will not yield results, and independent media will become as discredited as official media. Although people may say or write something wrong, which is natural in the realm of public opinion, the way these cases are handled is critically important.
It has the opposite effect.
Saeed Shariati, a reformist political activist, in response to the prosecutor’s decision regarding the current media situation, told ‘Ham Mihan’ that the dimensions of Iran’s attack on Israel can be examined from various angles, including political, military, and security, but this attack is unique and unprecedented in the international arena, which is why it has elicited reactions from world powers.
This decision is also very important domestically, and without a doubt, those who made such an important decision, in addition to accepting its potential consequences and having high confidence, also have broad-mindedness. Therefore, if people within the country become concerned about this decision and warn of its consequences, and even have analyses contrary to the decision-makers’ views, the decision-makers’ reaction to these criticisms should be more flexible.
The member of the Central Council of the Union of Islamic Iran People Party continued that if an article, news, or even opinion in the virtual space is accompanied by such a reaction with the aim of concern coupled with criticism or even with the aim of defamation, it is worth pondering, especially if the criticism comes from writers, thinkers, and journalists. Therefore, given the confidence in the decision to attack, the way of dealing with these criticisms should be different from the past.
In response to the question of whether this decision by the prosecutor’s office means further restrictions on freedom of expression in the media, he emphasized that those for whom cases have been filed are influential and well-known figures. Assuming that the news published by these individuals lacked sufficient accuracy, is the usual method of filing cases against them the right action? Undoubtedly, the important and main solution is dialogue with those who published this news. This method is essentially a violation of freedom of expression and will certainly have the opposite effect, as in previous years.
This political activist emphasized the need for more solidarity and cohesion in the current situation, stating that the National Security Council has held sessions with the media to explain the situation to them. This action, aimed at dialogue and consultation with the media, is commendable and will have a desirable outcome. I even suggest that these sessions have a media appendix with a persuasive aim. The purpose of mentioning these sessions is to say that the method of arresting and detaining media and media individuals is no longer the right approach.
In fact, critics should be criticized, especially in a major decision like the attack on Israel. If there were no critics, a symbolic and demonstrative space for criticism should have been created to announce that this decision was made and implemented despite the criticisms. The decision to file cases might be an action to control the space, but it will have negative effects in the future.
Comments should be made with care.
Naser Imani, a principled media activist, in defense of the prosecutor’s action regarding the summoning of some media figures, told ‘Ham Mihan’ that he would not delve into specifics. In his view, the country was in a special situation due to military operations, so those with platforms and media should pay particular attention to national interests. If this attention was not given and it is perceived that their words or writings deliberately contributed to public confusion, it warrants confrontation.
The country was on the brink of an enemy attack, and economic concerns were rising. In such conditions, if someone or some people contribute to public anxiety, there should be a reaction to their actions. These analyses do not cause problems under normal circumstances.
He added that when public opinion is anxious and people are worried about where the economic situation is heading or whether the enemy will retaliate for this military operation, care should be taken as any comment can contribute to public confusion. In special conditions, some deliberately or inadvertently do this. After Iran’s operation, Israel did not allow the slightest news about the dimensions of Iran’s military operation, the number of injured and killed, or the locations hit to be published in their media because their country was in a special situation.
This principled political analyst, in response to the question of whether only one line of thinking should be followed in special conditions, said that some of our friends in the government and system’s critic faction officially announced before this operation that in these conditions, a military operation is not suitable for the region. No one confronted them for expressing their opinion. However, in conditions where the military operation has been carried out and there are concerns about economic issues or an attack on the country, if someone reports price increases or hypothetically announces that the country will be bombed in a few hours, is this in line with freedom of expression, or does it mean that everyone should not follow one line of thinking?
Imani, in response to the question of why officials attribute their inefficiency to the enemy in these conditions, emphasized that he does not defend the government and the officials’ mistakes. There is no doubt that it is unacceptable to people that officials cover their weaknesses with the enemy instead of explaining their performance. The point is that the country’s senior officials decided to carry out a military operation.
I think the public’s opinion also wanted this because we have been patient for years and endured internal and external assassinations, but it reached a point where Iran’s soil—the Iranian consulate in Syria—was violated. If Iran did not respond to this action, the national pride of the people would be damaged.
In these special conditions and for a short period, everyone should help calm the society. Media people may also criticize the core issue and not find the military solution correct, but in all countries, in special conditions, those with platforms and pens know that they should not raise issues that are against national interests and the people. No one opposes announcing the prices of dollars and essential goods. Did the media not write enough that due to the economic officials’ mistakes, the dollar price has increased? Does anyone say not to raise these issues?
However, in special and semi-war conditions, news reporting should be more careful. At that specific time, if it is announced that due to this operation, the prices of goods or currency have increased, it is problematic. Even a few days after the operation, announcing that the military operation has caused the currency prices to rise is not acceptable.