TEHRAN — Ashish Prashar, an award-winning political strategist and human rights advocate who has advised senior political figures in the United States and Europe, spoke with Tehran Times about the implications of the U.S.–Israeli attacks on Iran since February 28.

Prashar, who previously worked with senior diplomatic and policy initiatives related to the Middle East and frequently appears in international media, argues that the escalation reflects long-standing geopolitical calculations rather than immediate security concerns. He also discusses Western media narratives, European silence, and the broader consequences for international law and global stability. According to Prashar, the confrontation risks strengthening Iran’s internal cohesion while accelerating shifts in global power dynamics and public opinion across the West.

The following is the full text of the interview:

In your view, what was the main reason behind Donald Trump’s attack on Iran? Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby in the U.S., and their pressure, were the main reasons for him to initiate the attack?

I think Marco Rubio’s now-famous slip of the tongue after the first weekend of bombing on Tehran and Iran was very telling. I often think people in those moments tell the truth, right?

Rubio said, “We did this because Israel—we’re going to go in.”

And I think that was a very telling moment in this whole story.

Obviously, they’ve come up with multiple reasons since. But, you know, I think Rubio’s a very calculated politician. He doesn’t just say things off the cuff unless they are true. He’s not as clumsy as Donald Trump in language.

I think he was telling the truth. I think he was very honest with the world—that we did this for Israel.

Now, obviously, the U.S. since then has said it’s about nuclear issues, then about freedom, then about oil—whatever it’s about. I’ve heard 17 different versions from Donald Trump, probably more at this point, about why they’re doing this.

But I think Rubio—if you want to take an honest answer—I think Secretary of State Rubio said it straight from his mouth: that we’re doing this for Israel.

And also, by the way, we don’t just have to rely on that slip of the tongue by Rubio.

Look, this has been American and Israeli foreign policy to take out this “seven nations” for a long time: Libya, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon—and Iran was one of the final pillars on Netanyahu’s famous list from his congressional statements in 2001. And he’s managed to get the U.S. to help support, along with some European allies, the assault on all those nations.

Now, here’s the thing with this calculation: American presidents have always wanted to avoid a war with Iran. In fact, as you know, one president made a deal with Iran—sanctions relief and return to the global economy—in exchange for ending the nuclear weapons program.

And the only reason we’re here today is because of two things: Donald Trump ripping up that agreement, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to create a “greater Israel” over the region and nullify any form of resistance to his occupation.

I’m watching many videos on Instagram where Americans say Donald Trump did this to distract public opinion from the Epstein files. Do you agree with that?

I think it’s a combination of things.

I do stand by the fact that there is what I would describe as an Epstein class in the United States and Europe — people such as Prince Andrew, members of the royal family, Donald Trump, and others who have been accused of horrific crimes against children. I think this is something we need to remind people of.

When we talk about the West killing children and Israel killing children, these are leaders who have been accused of harming children. So are we surprised that there is a dismissive attitude toward the value of children’s lives? When schools are bombed in Iran, there is shock among the Western public that “we” would do this — but our leaders have been accused of horrific actions against children in our own countries.

Part of this may be to distract from that, but I also believe Israel sees this as a strategic opportunity. With all the dominoes that have fallen over the last couple of years, they believe they are facing almost no opposition — including what they see as the continued destruction in Gaza.

What country has stopped them, besides resistance forces in Lebanon and Hezbollah? What other country has stopped them? No one in Europe has stopped them from what they are doing in Gaza and Palestine.

We’ve seen repeated attacks on Syria and Lebanon, and they now even have the government of their choice in Syria. This brings me back to the point about cognitive dissonance in the West. They have managed to roll over these regions, these countries, and these leaderships, and now they have all the pillars they want.

They have a government in Lebanon that is against the resistance. They now have what I described as an Al-Qaeda chief of staff in Damascus serving their interests, currently working with Western governments on how to retaliate. They believe they have everyone aligned.

I believe they see this as their last shot — particularly with public opinion shifting in the West and even in the United States, where candidates are now more willing to dismiss AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. That doesn’t mean they will win all elections, but it is becoming more common for candidates not to automatically side with Israel.

They believe this is their last opportunity, with midterm elections approaching and possibly the final election cycles in which they can maintain this level of influence. If they lose power, they may never be able to pursue this strategy again.

So for them, there is a limited window to achieve what they see as a greater Israel. That is why they have been pushing for it.

Of course, Donald Trump also has personal reasons.

There are also elites in Europe and America who, in their view, are implicated in the Epstein files. This includes figures such as the Norwegian Crown Prince, who was involved in negotiating the Oslo Accords. They argue that bias toward Israel was built into those agreements.

These individuals are often presented as respectable figures, yet there are allegations against them. At the same time, there is a clear military and colonial objective by Israel that is very present in this situation.

They believe they may never be able to achieve this again. They think they have momentum and aligned governments, so they feel they must act now — or it will never happen. In their view, they must weaken Iran now or lose the opportunity.

I think this is a major miscalculation.

What they have not taken into account is that they are confronting a nation that has been preparing for a U.S. invasion since its founding — particularly since post-9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Iran has been planning scenarios for this kind of conflict for decades.

People forget that George W. Bush also placed Iran on that list. After Iraq, there was discussion of expanding military action toward Iran, but the United States became bogged down in Iraq.

So this history is often overlooked.

Iran has been preparing for conflict with what many consider the most powerful nation in the world for more than two decades — roughly 23 years. This is a country that has structured its strategy around that possibility.

Because of this, I believe there is a major miscalculation by military planners and politicians, along with a degree of arrogance by Israeli leadership in thinking they can weaken Iran — whether by targeting leadership or attempting to destabilize the country internally.

I think the Iranian people have seen what has happened to other countries in the region. They understand that the United States and Israel do not have their best interests in mind.

As you said, Europe refused to join the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran, but has remained largely silent about alleged war crimes. While there have been public protests—particularly over civilian casualties—most governments, with the exception of Spain, have not openly supported Iran. What do you think is the reason for this?

Look, here’s the thing. I think that also goes back to the cognitive dissonance conversation about the public too, right?

We have been fed propaganda about Iran for decades.

And I’m going to take a slightly bigger view on this topic to get to the answer you’re looking for.

First, the Europeans have been a bit complicit, right? Not every European government is completely removed from this.

The UK, for example, is currently allowing American bombers to take off from its soil. These bombers—like B-52 Stratofortress—you can track their flights. In my view, they are hitting civilian and energy targets. Those are war crimes.

So the UK is complicit in this, whether its troops or air force are directly involved or not. Its bases are being used as launch sites.

Now, European governments have been silent—but they’re also not being pressured enough by their public to be more vocal.

Compare that to Gaza. The public forced governments to speak up, to condemn actions, to even recognize Palestine in some cases. There was an education moment.

People started realizing: “We’ve been told lies for decades about Palestine, about Hamas, about resistance.”

It took time. Remember after October 7, many in the West still condemned Hamas. But the question is—how do you condemn people who are occupied? We don’t condemn the French Resistance. We don’t condemn other resistance movements in history.

And yet, even some Palestinian allies still condemn them.

I’m sorry, but it’s easy to sit in the West and write reports and talk about what people under occupation should or shouldn’t do. You’re not occupied. Your children are not being killed.

History shows that colonial powers didn’t just give up their colonies out of kindness. They were forced to—because of resistance. From Algeria to the Congo to Vietnam—and now Palestine.

Now apply that same logic to Syria.

People in the West were told what to believe about Bashar al-Assad, about Hezbollah, about the entire situation.

I’m not saying I agree with everything any government does. But the narrative was shaped by the same governments that wanted to overthrow Assad and replace him with someone more aligned with their interests—and with Israel.

And now they’ve got that.

This was never about “freeing Syria.” It was about installing a government aligned with Western interests.

If you want to understand how deep this goes, look at the discussions involving Jake Sullivan and Hillary Clinton—where groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS were discussed in strategic terms in Syria.

There were even PR efforts to rebrand militant figures—to reshape how they were presented, to make them more acceptable to Western audiences.

That’s how far this went.

So now we know, in my view, that the Syria narrative was misleading—especially when even Donald Trump later referred to certain figures as “our guy.”

But it took years for people to question that.

So the question is: why do the same people in the West still believe everything they’re told about Iran?

Again, I’m not saying any government—whether it’s the US, the UK, South Africa, or Iran—always makes the right decisions domestically.

But I am saying we should be careful about condemning a government when the only information we have comes from other governments that may have their own agenda.

You know, it’s the same United States that has spent decades lying about Palestinians, about Hezbollah, about other freedom fighters—whether it’s the Viet Cong or movements across the world—and now we’re expected to believe that same narrative about Iran.

And that’s the problem.

Too many people in the West just say, “the regime is bad.”

Well, no—it’s a government.

You don’t actually know what’s happening domestically in Iran—largely because of Western sanctions and the lack of real connection.

And people also don’t understand that sanctions cost lives.

That’s the part people in the West really need to wake up to.

Just because we’re not dropping bombs on a country doesn’t mean we’re not killing people.

As I’ve said before, Madeleine Albright once laughed when asked about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions—saying, essentially, that it was worth it.

That wasn’t a Republican—that was a Democrat, under Bill Clinton.

And what do you think they’ve been doing to Iran? They’ve been trying to choke its people.

We’ve seen the same approach in Venezuela.

It’s easy to create instability, anger, and pressure against a government when that government is prevented from functioning normally in the global system—when it’s restricted by the dollar, by the United States, and by European allies that don’t allow it to develop organically.

Right?

And here’s something people don’t talk about enough.

Even under sanctions, Iran never imposed fees on passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

To go through the Suez Canal, you pay Egypt.

Iran never did that—even when it was under heavy sanctions.

Think about that.

Whether you agree with the government or not, think about how significant that is.

And now suddenly there’s panic because Iran is restricting who can pass through—especially when it comes to countries aligned with the U.S. or Israel.

But first of all, it’s their territorial waters.

And second, they are under attack.

You didn’t stand with them when sanctions were hurting ordinary people—when people were struggling economically—so why would the Iranian government now keep open a critical energy route while being bombed by the United States and Israel?

So to answer your question—why have European governments been less outspoken?

I think it comes down to massive cognitive dissonance, a lack of education, and a lack of real understanding among the Western public about what Iran is, what its people stand for, and what’s actually happening.

And unfortunately, a lot of movements today aren’t led by informed, experienced voices.

They’re led by social media.

They’re led by popular figures online—and those people can be easily influenced.

Someone says, “I know a woman who was arrested in Iran,” and suddenly that becomes the narrative: that this is happening everywhere, at scale.

But my question is: have you actually been to Iran or not? Do you have firsthand information? Have you spoken to the population—the 90 million people there?

Do you know what’s actually going on? Do you understand how sanctions affect people? Do you understand the level of suffering they cause?

So many people have a very skewed knowledge base.

And because they simultaneously condemn the Iranian government while also condemning Israel and the United States, Western governments feel they don’t have to fully take a side—or be more vocal against the U.S.

Now, they have taken some practical steps that are, in fact, challenging for the United States.

Italy, for example, announced that there would be no flights from Italian bases. That’s a significant development because of the flight routes involved.

Now the U.S. has to operate out of the UK and take much longer routes around Iran, which creates military complications and increases vulnerability.

So yes, governments are taking some practical steps—but there needs to be much more vocal opposition.

And that only happens when the public in countries like Israel, Germany, and France stand up and demand it.

They need to say: you must take a position.

Because from my perspective, we have a situation where the United States is acting aggressively—already involved in what many see as genocidal actions, bombing Yemen, and now striking Iran—and yet there is silence.

And that responsibility lies not just with officials, but with the public as well. People need to demand accountability from their leaders—or those leaders should not be re-elected.

What do you think about public opinion in the United States? With midterm elections approaching, do you think mainstream media has been successful in shaping opinion, or are most Americans against Donald Trump’s attack on Iran?

That’s an interesting question.

I think there are a couple of things going on.

First, the U.S. media is not covering this war properly, as you probably know.

And since Palestine, social media platforms—the algorithms, the ownership—have changed. Platforms like TikTok, where many people learned about Palestine, are not providing the same level of exposure when it comes to Iran.

So people are not getting the same opportunity to understand what’s happening.

If you look at outlets like CNN or MSNBC, the coverage is still framed in a particular way: yes, maybe what’s happening is problematic, but also the Iranian government should be changed.

What I’m seeing in mainstream U.S. media is that the primary concern is economic.

They focus on cost, on markets, on economic consequences—not on humanitarian issues.

Whether it’s Reuters, CNN, or Fox News, much of the criticism of Trump is about how his decisions affect the U.S. economy—not about the human cost.

And I agree with that assessment completely.

There’s a well-known quote from Fred Hampton—excuse my language—that when you interfere with economic interests, that’s when things really change.

And he’s not wrong.

The reality is that Iran’s strategy here isn’t just about pushing back against U.S. presence in the region.

It’s also about understanding leverage.

And one of its biggest tools—its most powerful leverage—is energy: oil and gas.

They know that.

And I think they’ve thought very carefully about how to use that leverage to generate pressure—not just regionally, but globally.

They also understand that it’s not just about oil and gas in the way people usually think about it.

Most people still think of it in simple terms—putting fuel in their car, heating their home, cooking in their kitchen.

But oil affects everything.

That’s what people don’t fully understand.

Medicine supply chains depend on it. Goods and services depend on it. Plastics depend on it. Entire supply systems depend on it.

There’s always a delay, of course—but those effects are coming.

I know firsthand that the NHS—the National Health Service—is already planning for the possibility of rationing medical supplies.

One of the largest public healthcare systems in Europe is effectively saying it could run low on essential medicines within months.

We’re already seeing early signs elsewhere.

Egypt has implemented power usage curfews.

And as always, these effects hit the Global South first—countries like Pakistan and India, which are more immediately exposed geographically and economically.

Then those effects reach the West.

At first, it’s shortages—medicine, supplies, everyday goods. Then eventually, it becomes energy prices.

Southern European countries may be able to delay the impact because of gas relationships with North Africa—but they won’t avoid it.

Prices will rise—double, triple, even quadruple.

And that’s when things really begin to change.

I think Iran has effectively deployed a multi-pronged form of resistance to U.S. and Israeli actions—one that directly affects everyday life in the West, and in doing so creates pressure against continuing the war.

Now, how much resistance is there in the United States?

Look, if people think things will fundamentally change just by electing a Democrat, they are profoundly mistaken.

What the United States needs is a deeper transformation of its political system—of its political elite.

We often hear the term “regime change” applied to other countries—but the place that truly needs systemic political change is the United States itself.

We’ve had successive presidents who, in my view, have committed war crimes.

That includes Barack Obama—someone I’ve personally worked for.

He was the first to authorize a drone strike on a hospital to target an individual.

And today we criticize Israel for bombing hospitals—but we should also recognize that U.S. policy set precedents in this area.

Before him, there was George W. Bush. Before that, Bill Clinton—whose administration imposed sanctions that caused widespread suffering in Iraq.

There has been a pattern of U.S. leadership intervening globally—dictating how other countries should operate, and when they don’t comply, destabilizing them or reshaping their governments.

That’s not just policy—that’s extraction. That’s a continuation of a colonial mindset.

And I believe the only way that changes is if people in Europe and the United States begin to feel the consequences of those policies in a real, material way.

Because what have we actually done to stop what’s happening in Gaza?

The most effective constraints, in his view, have come not from Western action, but from regional actors like Hezbollah, and from direct confrontation involving Iran.

In contrast, actions in the West—outside of isolated acts like protests or attempts to disrupt arms production—have not been sufficient.

Even movements like BDS—Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions—have limits.

They were designed in the context of South African apartheid, a system that unfolded over decades.

What we’re seeing now is much faster.

Boycotts take time—and in a fast-moving conflict, time may not be available.

In that sense, he argues that Iran’s actions have had a more immediate economic impact than traditional boycott movements.

And he acknowledges that, collectively, Europe has not done enough.

Even with activism, advocacy, and political engagement—including efforts by former UN officials—he believes the response has fallen short.

As a result, he suggests that Western societies may now experience some of the same pressures that countries like Iran have faced under sanctions for decades.

And perhaps, he argues, that experience could drive political change—forcing governments to reconsider their foreign policies and their impact on the Global South.

He raises a broader moral question: how much suffering in other parts of the world has been tolerated to sustain comfort in the West—and how much longer that can continue.

 Let’s turn to international law. Do you see any hope for international justice in relation to this war?

It’s an important question.

From my perspective, Iran is operating within international law—primarily targeting military or adjacent facilities.

We have not seen the same from Israel or the United States.

There are cases where civilian targets—such as schools—were struck early on, even before military infrastructure was hit.

And when that happens, it’s often later described as a mistake.

But I don’t believe that’s accidental.

I think those actions are intended to create fear—to pressure the population, to turn people against their government.

It’s very deliberate. It’s by design. We’ve been doing this for a long time.

Look, I think international law effectively died with the Iraq War.

It was a slow process.

When the United States and the United Kingdom ignored the United Nations and went ahead with the invasion anyway—that was a major turning point.

Then you had Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where people were detained and tortured for years. You had extraordinary rendition—where the U.S. and the UK abducted individuals across the world and transferred them to black sites.

What did the international system do to stop that?

Nothing.

What did European allies do?

Nothing.

International law, in practice, has been applied to the Global South and to countries like Russia—but not to the West.

Even when the International Court of Justice issued provisional findings related to genocide, what did Europe do?

Nothing.

So I believe the first major blow to international law was Iraq.

The second was the complete failure to hold anyone accountable.

Barack Obama had the opportunity to prosecute those responsible for the Iraq War—including figures like Tony Blair—but that didn’t happen.

That lack of accountability deepened the damage.

So by the time we reached Gaza, the system was already broken.

Now, when people say “we must follow international law,” I understand the sentiment—but the reality is different.

In my view, those resisting occupation often adhere more closely to international law, particularly in their focus on military targets.

Whereas the actors who created these legal frameworks are often the ones violating them.

So for me, international law—as it currently exists—is effectively dead.

The real question is: what replaces it?

I do think there is some hope in using elements of the existing framework—but it needs new institutions, new structures, and a new foundation.

For example, initiatives like the Gaza Tribunal, associated with figures such as Richard Falk, are a starting point. They attempt to hold governments and institutions accountable using existing legal principles.

But the problem is where international law is based—and who controls it.

It cannot remain centered in Europe.

The countries that host and uphold these systems have failed to enforce them.

Even Switzerland—the guardian of the Geneva Conventions—has not acted effectively to prevent violations.

Meanwhile, Western governments selectively apply legal principles depending on their interests.

Take Keir Starmer, for example—claiming involvement is purely “defensive.”

But simply calling something defensive doesn’t make it so.

Words don’t change reality.

So yes, I believe the current system is finished.

What we need is a new structure—one rooted in the Global South.

The majority of the world’s population lives outside the West. Yet the highest legal and political institutions remain concentrated within it.

Why?

Why isn’t the central body of international law based in the Global South? Why isn’t it led by those countries?

The current structure of the United Nations reflects a post-World War II order shaped by colonial powers.

The UN Security Council, for example, includes permanent members that are largely historical powers, with limited representation from Africa or South America—despite their global significance.

That structure no longer reflects today’s world.

So I believe the system needs to be fundamentally rethought—if not entirely replaced.

We should build new institutions based on principles like human rights and dignity—but also ensure they have the independence and authority to enforce those principles.

Otherwise, international law becomes little more than academic discussion.

Is there any other point or dimension of this war that you would like to mention?

Yes. I think one of the most important things right now is for people in Iran to continue sharing their experiences.

People need to see what’s happening.

Not for sensationalism—but for awareness.

We saw during Gaza that when people witnessed events directly, it shifted global opinion.

The same needs to happen here.

People need to understand the human cost—not just of war, but also of sanctions.

They also need to see that Iran is not what it is often portrayed to be in Western narratives.

Even now, many in the West—despite becoming more aware on Palestine—still accept simplified or negative portrayals of Iran.

That needs to be challenged.

I’m not saying every government is perfect—but we should at least question the assumptions we’ve been given.

And I do believe that much of the world—across South America, Africa, and Asia—wants to see a shift in global power dynamics.

There is a growing desire to see an end to what many perceive as Western dominance in international affairs.

This is a critical moment.

If people in the West don’t engage with it—don’t question it, don’t demand accountability—then nothing changes.

And that’s why voices from Iran, and from across the region, are so important right now.