The Propaganda of Seyed Mohammad Marandi: A Case Study in Moral Evasion

In the landscape of modern media, where narratives are shaped as much by emotion as by evidence, few figures are as deeply troubling as Seyed Mohammad Marandi. Born in the United States and educated in the United Kingdom, Marandi has had the privilege of experiencing liberal democratic societies firsthand - societies that uphold free thought, academic freedom, and a functioning moral discourse. And yet, despite this background, he has chosen to devote himself to defending one of the most repressive regimes on the planet: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Marandi is no naive idealist. He is a polished, eloquent, and deliberate propagandist who has mastered the art of diversion, whataboutism, and rhetorical subterfuge. With a calm academic demeanor, he appears on Western platforms not to engage in open dialogue, but to wage a calculated ideological campaign. He floods interviews with references to obscure or fringe “Western experts,” selectively quoted and often distorted. He dodges direct questions by launching into long-winded condemnations of Western societies, deftly steering the conversation away from Iran’s atrocities. He equates Western military actions - often surgical and targeted - with indiscriminate terror campaigns carried out by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, whom he openly supports.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Marandi decries what he calls "Israeli atrocities" while turning a blind eye to - or even celebrating - the mass murder, rape, and abduction of civilians by Hamas on October 7, 2023. In the recent Israel–Iran conflict that erupted in June 2025, he claimed that Israel’s targeted strikes against military infrastructure were attacks on civilians, even as Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israeli population centers. This is not a man interested in truth or morality. This is someone engaged in the weaponization of discourse - dressed in academic clothing, but devoid of intellectual honesty.

What makes this especially disturbing is the failure of many Western hosts - especially those on centrist or “balanced” platforms - to confront him meaningfully. In their effort to remain neutral or “hear both sides,” they often allow Marandi’s manipulations to go unchecked. This lends him a credibility he does not deserve, while marginalizing the voices of real Iranian dissidents, journalists, and human rights defenders who risk their lives to speak truth to power.

Even more troubling is the uncritical embrace Marandi receives from elements of the Western far-left, such as George Galloway and others, who see him as a brave critic of imperialism. In reality, he is nothing more than a mouthpiece for imperialism of a different kind - the authoritarian, theocratic imperialism of the Islamic Republic, which exports terror through its proxies, suppresses its own people, and cynically cloaks its brutality in the language of justice and resistance.

There are credible reports that Marandi has acted as an advisor to Hezbollah, a group recognized by much of the world as a terrorist organization. If confirmed, this would place him in a category far beyond mere propagandist. Under international humanitarian law, civilians who directly participate in hostilities lose their protected status. Advising or aiding a terrorist military organization - especially in operational or strategic matters - constitutes such participation. In such a scenario, he would no longer be a civilian by legal definition, but a military asset.

However, democracies must adhere to the highest standards. Allegations must be met with rigorous evidence, not rage or ideology. The rule of law must be preserved, even in the face of grotesque moral inversion. Otherwise, the very values that separate open societies from authoritarian ones will begin to erode.

Marandi is not merely a controversial academic. He is a calculated actor in an information war, using the freedoms of the West to poison minds and normalize violence. His message is crafted not to inform, but to incite mistrust, moral confusion, and division. The most effective way to counter him is not through suppression or retaliation, but through unwavering moral clarity, robust debate, and the relentless exposure of truth. Only by doing so can democracies protect both their people and their principles from the corrosive influence of state-sanctioned deceit.