Terrorism Charges Against Iran: Label or Reality?
WANA (Aug 27) – In recent days, the issue of “covert operations” has once again climbed to the top of international headlines. The arson attack on a synagogue in Melbourne and a kosher restaurant in Sydney in late 2024 was attributed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The Australian government even came close to expelling Iran’s ambassador. Yet, to date, no conclusive and publicly available evidence has been presented to substantiate this accusation. The case remains under investigation, with much of what has been reported centering on “suspicious financial networks.” Independent, publicly verifiable proof of such links is absent, and the information remains locked within the realm of “classified security documents.”
Canberra reacted swiftly: it expelled the Iranian ambassador and several diplomats while announcing its intention to designate the IRGC as a “terrorist organization.”
Australia Expels Iran’s Ambassador, Halts Tehran Embassy
WANA (Aug 26) – Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Tuesday accused Iran of orchestrating at least two “antisemitic attacks” in the country and announced a series of measures, including expelling Iran’s Ambassador in Australia, against Tehran. Speaking to reporters, Albanese claimed—without presenting evidence—that Australian intelligence services had linked Iran to an attack on a […]
Tehran, in turn, dismissed the allegations as “baseless” and politically motivated, claiming that Australia’s decision reflected domestic pressures or alignment with Israel rather than solid evidence. For Iran, this is yet another instance of the instrumental use of the “terrorism” label.
But the story does not end there. This episode fits into a familiar pattern: whenever an incident occurs in the West—or one affecting Western interests—attention quickly shifts to Iran, often before judicial proceedings or the release of complete evidence. For many observers, this rush to attribution signals not the unveiling of truth, but the workings of pre-set political and security frameworks.
The picture appears even more incomplete when the history of covert interventions by major powers is recalled. In the collective memory of the Middle East and Latin America, the roles of the United States and the United Kingdom in toppling legitimate governments are well documented: from the 1953 coup in Iran—confirmed by declassified CIA and MI6 files—to direct interference in Chile, Guatemala, and Iraq. WikiLeaks has further exposed parts of Washington’s and London’s covert operations, which directly impacted national security in other states, yet were rarely labeled as “covert attacks.”
People attend an anti-Israeli protest following the Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Israel’s policies offer another striking example. The assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in Tehran and cyberattacks against Iran’s infrastructure—such as the Stuxnet virus, designed jointly by the U.S. and Israel—were seldom described in mainstream media as “illegal acts.” Instead, terms like “deterrence” or “preemptive measures” were preferred. This framing reveals how the criteria shift depending on the actor, rather than on the principles of international law.
Such linguistic dualities prompt a wider question: why is one kind of operation framed as legitimate, while the very same act, if carried out by another state, becomes a global threat?
Noam Chomsky observed years ago: “The media often reflect what centers of power produce.” That statement feels more tangible today than ever. When intelligence agencies serve as the primary sources of these narratives, and when the evidence is withheld from public scrutiny, the media cease to question and instead echo the official storyline.
Protesters rally across Australian cities to demand end to Gaza genocide. Social media/ WANA News Agency
The key issue is this: the debate is not only about whether Iran engages in covert operations, but about how the narratives themselves are constructed. Why do the standards shift depending on who the actor is? If covert operations are inherently contrary to international law, why does history abound with Western actions that were not only excused but in some cases legitimized?
The Melbourne and Sydney cases now hang in a state of ambiguity: a grave allegation without public evidence, and political decisions whose diplomatic consequences have outpaced the facts. The central question is no longer just about Iran, but about the narratives themselves: when everything remains shrouded in “classified documents,” are we confronting the truth—or a version of truth shaped to serve particular ends?
