Reign of Silence: On Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh

On 27 November 2020 a horrible tragedy took place – assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iranian academic physicist and a senior official in Iran’s nuclear program. Before we get to the main message of this article, we would like to extend our condolences on Mohsen Fakhrizadeh’s tragic death to family, loved ones and friends. May his soul rest in peace.

Iranian scientist became a victim of a vicious, ruthless crime. In its statement on the matter, Russian MFA described it as a “terrorist attack, which was obviously designed to destabilise the region and exacerbate its conflict potential. Those who organised the assassination to further their political interests must be held accountable”. Perhaps, it can’t be described any more accurately. What is alarming to us though is that the fighting impunity and equality before the law – crucial principles of modern democracy and liberalism – are being rapidly replaced by double standards.

We cannot help but to draw parallels between Fakhrizadeh’s assassination and “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny. Just as quick a reminder, have a look at some of the titles from Western MSM (mainstream media): “Western spies privately blame Russia's FSB for Alexei Navalny poisoning” (The Guardian), “Navalny's Novichok poisoning poses questions for Russia. The world is unlikely to get answers” (CNN). Not that the “world” (we take it, this means the “Western world”) actually needed any “answers” from Russia, as it turned out soon afterwards. “Kremlin meant to kill Navalny, western security agencies believe” (The Guardian). Voila! The West comes up with its own “answer” and now it hardly accepts any alternatives, second thoughts or evidence. So…“EU sanctions senior Russians over Navalny poisoning” (Politico). Have you noticed how fast did the West proceed from mere suspicions to punishment? Mind you, this was all in the context that nobody ever proved that Russia was indeed responsible for the “poisoning”. Russian doctors have not found any traces of any poison. When Navalny was tested in Europe, Russia was denied to obtain the test results even through the channels of mutual legal assistance, established in accordance with the international law and treaty obligations of several countries involved.

Nonetheless, the sanctions against Russia were introduced. Punishment with no established guilt, purely on the basis of “highly likely” formula (a.k.a. “highly probably” and “almost certainly”) - at its finest. Successfully field-tested during the so-called “Skripal Case”.

Okay. As an experiment, let’s presume that the administration of justice, comprehensive investigation and analyzing evidence are now entirely replaced by “highly likely” formula. Then why not use it in case of Mr.Fakhrizadeh’s murder? Where are the suspects? Where are the demands for “answers” from vigilant governments and “independent” NGO’s? Where are “highly likely” assumptions? Where are the threats to punish and introduce sanctions? Instead, hardly any calls for an investigation from the West. What’s wrong?

We would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Western MSM spared no effort to turn the Navalny Case into a whole tragedy of global significance. And Navalny survived the “assault”! To the deepest regret, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh did not and nobody the Western officials seems to be worried about it. The difference between the Navalny Case and Fakhrizadeh’s killing, in terms of their coverage, is astounding. Compared to the former, what we see now is practically the reign of silence. Why, we wonder?

Is it because he was Iranian? Is it because he worked for Iranian nuclear programme? If, by any chance, yes, then why does it matter, exactly? If Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was Iranian and lived in Iran, what other nuclear programme could he have worked for? Any nuclear programme is, in fact, regarded as a potential threat by someone. Many countries have their own nuclear programmes. Can all the people involved in them now be considered as legitimate targets? Is it just that crimes against nationals of certain countries can be tolerated? Does Fakhrizadeh’s nationality make his death less of a tragedy?

Just imagine what the Western MSM’s and officials’ reaction would’ve been if the late Fakhrizadeh worked for US nuclear programme, for example, or French, or that of any other Western country. Then, and only then, we presume, it would’ve been a real hysteria.