LONDON / GENEVA / PARIS / NEW YORK (Shabnam Delfani) — A broad coalition of academics, researchers, students, and members of the international scholarly community has issued a strongly worded open letter condemning a series of strikes on universities, laboratories, hospitals, and research facilities in Iran, urging immediate international action to safeguard civilian scientific infrastructure amid the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military operations against the country.

The letter, addressed to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, and the governments of all parties involved, highlights at least 21 reported attacks on scientific and educational institutions. It warns that such assaults endanger researchers, students, medical personnel, and the broader public while inflicting irreversible damage on scientific progress and societal well-being.

Recent strikes between March 28 and 31, 2026, have drawn particular alarm. Attacks targeted Isfahan University of Technology in Isfahan, as well as Iran University of Science and Technology and Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran. On March 31, one of Iran’s largest pharmaceutical research and development centers, Tofigh Daru (also known as Tofiq Daru), was severely damaged. The facility is a major producer of anesthetics and critical treatments for multiple sclerosis and cancer.

“Scientific and educational institutions are civilian spaces essential to public health, knowledge, and human survival,” the open letter declares. “Their destruction endangers researchers, students, medical personnel, and the broader public, while causing lasting harm to science and society.”

The signatories issue a forceful call for all parties to the conflict to immediately cease attacks on civilian scientific and educational sites, including laboratories, universities, hospitals, research centers, libraries, and archives. They further demand that the United Nations, UNESCO, and other relevant international bodies take concrete steps: thoroughly document the damage inflicted on these institutions, provide protection and support to affected scholars and students, launch independent investigations into potential violations of international humanitarian law, and ensure that those responsible for unlawful strikes on protected civilian infrastructure are identified and held accountable through impartial legal mechanisms.

“Science is not a military target. Universities and laboratories must not become battlefields,” the letter asserts. It concludes with an urgent appeal to the international community to act decisively to protect scientific infrastructure, defend academic life, and uphold the fundamental principle that institutions dedicated to the advancement of knowledge must never be treated as expendable in times of war.

In response to the escalating strikes, Iranian officials have warned of possible retaliation against American and Israeli-linked academic campuses in the region, raising fears of a dangerous widening of the conflict into educational spheres.

The open letter, signed collectively by “academics, researchers, students, and members of the global scholarly community,” underscores the long-standing international consensus on preserving the sanctity of scientific and educational institutions even amid geopolitical tensions and armed conflict. It stresses that safeguarding academic freedom and scientific capacity serves the collective well-being of humanity and must be defended against future assaults.

This appeal comes as reports continue to emerge of significant material damage to Iranian academic and medical research facilities, with some accounts noting injuries among university staff. The global scholarly community’s unified stance reflects growing concern that the targeting of Iranian Scientists and knowledge-producing institutions threatens not only Iran but the broader fabric of international scientific cooperation.

Please Sign: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd9yA3741PhNbeae-pWxiNU-buR5PJTgi5lYHXmvB11ZoMybA/viewform

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The synchronized declarations from Washington and Tel Aviv—that objectives have been achieved and the war is nearing its end—are being projected as victory. Yet the ground reality tells a harsher story. When a war concludes with one side still striking, still deterring, still shaping the battlefield, and still holding the world’s most critical energy artery at risk, declarations of success begin to sound less like triumph and more like an organized exit.
President Donald Trump’s announcement of a withdrawal within weeks, echoed by Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that the Iranian threat has been neutralized, collides directly with what is unfolding across the region. Iran remains operationally active, strategically coherent, and economically consequential. The Strait of Hormuz remains under pressure, global markets remain unsettled, and U.S. and Israeli deterrence has been openly challenged.
This was a war launched to break Iran. Instead, it has exposed the limits of American and Israeli power. From the outset, the strategy was clear: decapitate leadership, shatter command and control, demoralize the military, and trigger internal collapse. But Iran did not behave like previous targets of such doctrine. It was prepared. Leadership was decentralized. Decision-making was distributed. Authority was layered. Even after successive eliminations of senior figures, the system did not collapse—it adapted. It continued. It responded with discipline and precision.
This was not survival by chance. It was survival by design. Instead of paralysis, there was continuity. Instead of panic, there was proportionate retaliation. Iranian forces did not wait for instructions from the top; they operated with clarity at multiple levels, responding in a coordinated and calculated manner. This single factor alone dismantled one of the core assumptions of the war—that Iran could be broken from the top down.
At the same time, Iran demonstrated a level of strategic reach that redefined the conflict. It struck where necessary, deterred where required, and maintained pressure across multiple fronts. It challenged U.S. positions, responded to Israeli actions, and signaled its ability to extend the battlefield beyond conventional limits. Even the perceived threat to maritime flows in the Strait of Hormuz was enough to shake global confidence, disrupt trade, and push major economies into
While Washington and Tel Aviv adjusted narratives, Iran maintained a consistent posture. It framed itself as resisting aggression, responding proportionally, and defending sovereignty. That narrative gained traction. In modern conflict, perception is power, and Iran captured that domain with striking effectiveness.
What, then, has this war actually produced? For Iran, the gains are unmistakable. It has shattered the myth of American military invincibility. It has broken the perception of Israeli untouchability. It has proven that a sanctioned nation can withstand and counter the most powerful military alliance in the world. It has elevated its status from a constrained regional actor to a central force capable of influencing global economics and geopolitics.
Most critically, it has turned geography into power. By demonstrating its ability to control or disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, Iran now holds leverage over a significant portion of the world’s energy supply. This changes everything. Countries that once supported sanctions must now consider their own survival. Their ships must pass through waters influenced by Iran. Their economies depend on uninterrupted flow.
Sanctions, in this new reality, begin to lose meaning. A country that can influence the movement of global trade cannot be easily isolated. On the contrary, nations may find themselves negotiating with Iran—not from a position of strength, but necessity. The possibility emerges that Iran could impose conditions: removal or dilution of sanctions, economic concessions, and even transit fees on shipping. In effect, the war may have handed Iran the very tool to recoup its losses—by monetizing the artery the world cannot avoid.
For Israel, the losses are equally significant. The aura of invincibility is gone. The ability to act without consequence has been challenged. The assumption of uncontested regional dominance has been exposed as fragile. Israel has not been destroyed, but it has been reduced to size—forced into a strategic reality where every action carries a cost and every escalation invites a response.
This has direct implications for the broader region. In Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, the strategic environment has shifted. The space for unchecked expansion or unilateral military action is narrowing. The vision of dominance now faces a counterweight that is both capable and willing to respond.
For the United States, the implications are even broader. After decades of spending trillions to build the most powerful military machine in history, it now faces a sobering conclusion: superiority does not guarantee victory. A sanctioned nation, isolated for years, has not only survived but imposed costs and shaped outcomes. This is not merely a battlefield setback—it is a blow to credibility, deterrence, and global perception.
Yet beyond strategy, missiles, and geopolitics, the war has revealed something deeper about Iran itself. The strength of the Iranian system did not lie only in its weapons or its geography, but in its political cohesion and societal resolve. Despite sustained attacks, leadership losses, and economic pressure, the state did not fracture. Its constitutional structure held. Its political hierarchy remained intact. Most importantly, its people did not turn inward—they rallied.
Instead of division, there was unity. Instead of fatigue, there was resolve. Instead of collapse, there was collective resistance. This reflects a nation bound not only by institutions but by identity—by a shared commitment to sovereignty, independence, and the legacy of its revolution. In the face of external aggression, the Iranian population appears to have responded not with fear but with heightened patriotism, reinforcing loyalty to the state and its leadership.
Such moments often define nations. Rather than weakening the system, the war may have strengthened belief in it. Rather than undermining the revolution, it may have reaffirmed its relevance. And with that renewed confidence, a new possibility emerges: that Iran, secure in its strength, may now have both the space and the incentive to pursue internal political reforms while engaging more openly with the global economy—on its own terms, and from a position of power.
Yet even as declarations of withdrawal dominate headlines, the war itself may not be over. The possibility remains that these announcements are tactical—designed to calm global markets, stabilize oil prices, and ease domestic pressures—while leaving room for renewed escalation, including potential ground operations. The United States has, in past conflicts, shifted objectives even after signaling de-escalation. That pattern cannot be ignored.
Iran, for its part, appears prepared for that possibility. But if the withdrawal proves genuine—if escalation does not follow and hostilities truly subside—then the conclusion becomes unavoidable. In that case, the war stands as a strategic victory for Iran: a conflict in which it withstood the combined force of the United States and Israel, preserved its system, expanded its leverage, and reshaped the regional balance of power.
This was a war intended to break Iran. Instead, it has strengthened it. Strengthened its system. Strengthened its people. Strengthened its place in the world. And if this war truly ends here, history will not remember the declarations of victory—it will remember the reality that a nation under pressure did not break, did not bend, and instead emerged more united, more confident, and more powerful than before.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The ongoing war involving Iran has exposed a profound paradox, a striking contradiction, a concealed truth, and a manufactured lie. At its core lies a deeply unsettling question: who defines terrorism, and by what moral authority? The very states that stand accused globally of war, civilian casualties, and widespread destruction are the ones labeling another nation—Iran—as a “terrorist state.” This contradiction is not merely political; it is philosophical, moral, and deeply human.
If one were to objectively assess Iran’s historical conduct, the narrative becomes far more complex than the labels suggest. Iran, for centuries, has not engaged in expansionist wars in the way major global powers have. Unlike repeated military interventions seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, Iran’s posture has largely been framed as defensive or reactive within its sphere of influence. Yet, despite this, it continues to be branded as the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.”
This labeling becomes even more paradoxical when juxtaposed against the actions of powerful nations. The United States has been involved in prolonged wars—from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan—resulting in immense civilian suffering. Similarly, Israel’s military operations have drawn sustained criticism for disproportionate force. Yet these actions are rarely framed within the same terrorism narrative. Power, it seems, does not merely influence outcomes—it defines vocabulary.
The contradiction deepens further when examining the language used by political leadership. In recent months, figures such as Donald J. Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth have employed rhetoric that is not only confrontational but deeply dehumanizing. Iranian leaders have been described as “lunatics,” “religious fanatic zealots,” and “radical clerics,” while their military has been portrayed as “decimated,” “rats running,” or facing “certain death.” Statements such as “annihilate,” “wipe out,” and “no mercy” reflect not diplomacy, but domination.
In the current 2026 conflict—widely referred to as Operation Epic Fury—this language has reached a new and alarming intensity. The successive elimination of Iran’s top leadership through three coordinated waves of U.S.-Israeli strikes has been framed not as a tragic necessity of war, but as a moment of triumph. President Trump described the killing of Ali Khamenei as “justice for the world,” calling him “one of the most evil people in history,” while declaring the Iranian regime “decimated, destroyed—they’re all dead.” He dismissed subsequent leadership tiers as “mostly dead,” suggesting that Iran’s governing structure had been “wiped out” and replaced by something more “reasonable.”
Meanwhile, Secretary Hegseth adopted a tone that stripped away even the last remnants of diplomatic civility, remarking that the remaining Iranian leaders were “toast,” boasting that “Trump got the last laugh,” and repeatedly describing the campaign as one in which targets were “hunted down and killed.” He went so far as to characterize this approach as “negotiating with bombs.” Secretary Rubio reinforced this posture, referring to Iranian leaders as “religious fanatic lunatics” and stating that those who once engaged diplomatically with the United States were now “no longer on planet Earth.”
When these remarks are placed in the broader equation of diplomacy, commerce, and international order, they reveal something far deeper than policy—they expose a mindset. A mindset in which the elimination of leadership is celebrated, where human beings are reduced to targets, and their deaths to rhetorical victories. The language—“wiped out,” “toast,” “hunted,” “no longer on planet Earth”—is not merely undiplomatic; it is profoundly cruel, shockingly heartless, and reflective of an extraordinary level of hubris. It suggests a worldview in which power grants the right not only to kill, but to celebrate killing.
Yet, strikingly, Iran’s official responses have largely avoided descending into similar linguistic hostility. While firm and assertive, Iranian leadership has generally refrained from using overtly dehumanizing language against American or Israeli leaders. This asymmetry in discourse reveals another dimension of the paradox: the side with overwhelming military superiority often adopts the most aggressive rhetoric, while the targeted state attempts to retain diplomatic restraint.
Another dimension of this conflict lies in the proportionality of violence, and here the numbers tell a far more revealing story than rhetoric. In Iran alone, approximately 3,486 people have been killed, including 1,568 civilians and at least 236 children and more than 20,000 wounded, Lebanon has reported over 1,200 deaths, including at least 124 children, as Israeli strikes intensified across its territory. In stark contrast, Israel reports 19 civilian deaths, alongside a small number of military casualties, while the United States has recorded 13 military deaths and no significant civilian losses on its own soil. Elsewhere, countries such as Iraq have reported around 100 deaths, with additional casualties scattered across Gulf states, Syria, and other affected regions.
If terrorism is defined as violence against civilians to achieve political objectives, then the clarity of labeling becomes increasingly blurred. Can a state responsible for large-scale civilian destruction still claim exclusive moral authority? Or does power itself redefine morality?
Historically, legitimacy has often been shaped not by actions alone, but by control over narrative. The ability to define terms, to repeat them through global media, and to embed them into public consciousness has allowed powerful nations to position themselves as arbiters of justice—even when their actions are contested.
The war has also exposed the strategic use of information. From the outset, claims that Iran’s capabilities had been “90 percent degraded” were widely circulated. Yet, continued retaliatory strikes and sustained operational capacity challenge these assertions. The gap between declared success and observable reality highlights how information itself has become a weapon of war.
Iran, by contrast, has maintained a relatively consistent message: that any attack on its territory would be met with reciprocal force. Whether through threats to energy routes, regional strikes, or broader escalation signals, its actions have largely aligned with its stated doctrine. This consistency stands in contrast to the shifting narratives and evolving justifications presented by its adversaries.
The Iran conflict is therefore not merely a military confrontation—it is a battle over definitions: of terrorism, legitimacy, and morality. It forces the world to confront uncomfortable truths about power and perception, and to question whether moral authority truly lies with those who possess the greatest force.
In the end, the paradox remains unresolved. A nation labeled as a terrorist state asserts its right to defend itself, while those waging war in the name of security claim moral superiority. Between these competing narratives lies a complex and often uncomfortable reality—one that cannot be reduced to slogans or labels.
The true measure of humanity is not in the ability to dominate, but in the capacity to uphold dignity even in conflict. If the language of war continues to strip away that dignity, then the line between justice and aggression will fade into obscurity. And perhaps that is the most dangerous truth of all.