TEHRAN- In this exclusive interview with Tehran Times, Bushra Shaikh, a British media personality, broadcaster, and activist known for her political and social commentary, reflects on her recent visit to Iran as part of a delegation of international journalists who traveled to the country to report on the effects of the Israeli–U.S. attack on Iran.

During her tour of war-damaged areas, she offers firsthand observations of the scale of destruction, the humanitarian impact on civilians, and the broader information gap in Western media coverage. She also addresses key questions surrounding civilian infrastructure, casualty reporting, and the narratives shaping international perceptions of the conflict, emphasizing the importance of direct field reporting in understanding the realities on the ground.

The following is the full text of the interview:

When you entered the war-damaged areas, what were the first physical signs of destruction that stood out to you—things that cannot be fully conveyed through photographs or secondary reports?

For me, it was the sheer gravitas—the scale of the destruction. It was the rubble, the fact that nothing remains. Entire structures have been reduced to their most basic materials. It was beyond comprehension. Even now, I am still processing some of the scenes I witnessed.
Images present a distorted version of reality. They do not do justice to what is actually on the ground or to the magnitude of the crime that has been committed. It is deeply heart-wrenching to see what were once homes or institutions reduced entirely to rubble. There is nothing left.

 After witnessing these areas firsthand, what is the most important detail that international audiences are not being told accurately?

This is a very important question, particularly in relation to international audiences—and even international law. If I must identify a single point, I would say there are, in fact, multiple critical aspects being overlooked.

First, we are not being accurately informed about the types of missiles and munitions used, nor about the scale of their destructive power in civilian areas. There is also a lack of transparency regarding casualty figures—particularly how many of the victims are women and how many are children.

As a result, there is a highly distorted image of what these airstrikes actually entail and the extent of their impact. Targeting infrastructure is one issue, but when weapons have an impact radius of up to 20 kilometers, it means that surrounding buildings—and the people inside them—are inevitably affected.

Another key issue is the repeated justification for bombing civilians. We are presented with narratives suggesting that an apartment building was targeted because a military figure was believed to be present. This raises serious legal and moral questions. Yet, the international community has remained largely silent.

We are witnessing the bombing of cultural and historical heritage sites protected under UNESCO. Civilian infrastructure—homes and family dwellings—is being destroyed. Even media institutions, such as the IRIB building, are being targeted. These are facilities meant to inform the public—so how can they be considered legitimate targets?

This issue is complex and far-reaching. It is not limited to a single factor. What I have witnessed, combined with the silence of the international community, is nothing short of a travesty.

 You visited the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, which was hit on February 28 during the opening wave of U.S.-Israeli strikes, killing nearly 170 civilians—including around 120 schoolchildren and more than 20 teachers. Given that it was a functioning school filled with students at the time, did you see any evidence suggesting it was a military target?

The first thing I would say is that the scale of destruction was so vast that it was almost inconceivable that the site had once been a school. That was my initial reaction.

As for any evidence of military operations or the presence of an army base at that location, I saw nothing to suggest that. What I did see was that at least 70 percent of the entire school had been destroyed. And throughout, all I could think about were the young schoolchildren who had been killed under the rubble.

Walking through the site, it was clear that it was a school. It was heartbreaking. There were children’s drawings on the walls, half-broken desks, and classrooms that still bore traces of where students once sat. I remember seeing a dolphin painted on one of the doors. Everyone in the area confirmed that the building had functioned as a school for the past six to seven years.

If the United States and Israel claim to possess some of the most advanced high-tech intelligence capabilities in the world, then surely their intelligence systems would have identified this building as a school.

I understand that there was a justification offered—although no apology was issued. The statement was that the incident was “under investigation,” and that there may have been an army base in the vicinity. I looked into this claim. Even in that case, there was no evidence of an army base at the site itself. A separate building had been targeted, which also showed no indication of being a military facility; rather, it appeared to be a warehouse storing essential goods, including pharmaceutical supplies.

Even if there had been an army base nearby—which I did not see—my point is this: if there is a primary school in close proximity, that area should not be considered a target zone. Are we to justify the bombing of children and the killing of teachers because of something that might exist nearby? These are grave war crimes, and there is no other way to describe them.

It was deeply emotional. We cried for hours. To me, that is part of journalism—you cannot stand in a place where children once learned and played, and where they were killed, without being profoundly affected. I could not even bring myself to describe what may have happened to the bodies of these children. The impact of the strikes—multiple, simultaneous “double” and “triple” hits—was beyond anything that can be adequately expressed in words. It was truly awful.

The United States claims that the school was struck by a Tomahawk missile by mistake. What do you think was the objective? Do you believe it was intended to create fear among civilians in Iran—not only physically but also psychologically?

I believe that labeling such a grave war crime—an act against humanity and the educational system where parents and teachers were killed—as a "mistake" reveals a profound dehumanization. It suggests that these lives are neither equal nor valued. Nothing of this magnitude happens by accident. If it truly were a mistake, it would expose a catastrophic failure in the "strike intelligence" they claim is the best in the world; clearly, it is not.

In reality, we know this was not accidental. It was deliberate. It was a targeted operation carried out intentionally, evidenced by multiple successive strikes. This constitutes psychological warfare, aimed at instilling fear among the Iranian people and making them feel threatened. Essentially, as we understand from statements attributed to Donald Trump, the objective was to push the Iranian population toward rising up against their own government.

There were even allegations that these strikes were carried out by Iran itself. The level of distortion, fabrication, and outright falsehoods, combined with a lack of empathy and humanity, points to one conclusion: there was willingness to commit this act. They were prepared to do it. Why? Because there is a persistent absence of accountability that allows such actions to continue.

The international community has repeatedly failed to take a firm and principled stance when the United States and Israel commit such acts. We have witnessed, in the case of Israel, actions widely described as genocide, with estimates of at least 100,000 women, children, and babies killed, entire families and bloodlines erased. Yet the international community—including the EU and the UK—has been complicit through inaction, effectively allowing it to continue.

In that context, what the United States has done, when compared to the scale of crimes attributed to Israel, may be considered “minor” by their own standards—yet it remains an act of profound brutality.

Many Western media outlets portray Iran as a country on the verge of collapse. Based on your observations, how accurate is this portrayal?

It is quite striking that some in the West appear largely unaware of how Iran’s infrastructure, ecosystem, and broader cultural system actually function. This is a country that has been under sanctions for 47 years, yet what I witnessed inside Iran tells a very different story.

The Iranian people are remarkable. They have learned to operate under constraints in ways that few other countries could. I would challenge anyone to point to another nation that has endured nearly five decades of sanctions and still achieved what Iran has.

When you look at the infrastructure—the metro system, the organization of daily life, the housing, the food, the culture—it becomes clear that the country continues to function in a highly adaptive and resilient manner. What is particularly impressive is the level of self-sufficiency: indigenous organizations, locally produced pharmaceuticals, and domestic industries that have developed precisely because of restrictions on imports and exports.

The narrative of a “broken” Iran is, in my view, largely rhetorical. It is a constructed storyline designed to persuade external audiences that the country is failing and therefore in need of outside intervention or “liberation.” In reality, the situation is quite the opposite. Iran is performing remarkably well, especially when considered within the context of the pressures it faces.

 You will soon return to London. What is the single most important message you want to convey to your audience there—particularly to those whose understanding of Iran is shaped only by media portrayals?

The most important message I want to take back with me and amplify in the UK is the need to humanize Iranians. There has been a clear process of dehumanization, and that needs to be challenged.

Iranians are among the most intelligent, inspiring, and skilled people I have encountered. This is a civilization with a history spanning thousands of years—one that has preserved and passed down its knowledge, culture, and identity across generations.

Equally important is this: the people of Iran have not asked for war. They have not asked for foreign intervention. There is a persistent narrative suggesting that Iranians want the United States or Israel to act on their behalf—this is categorically false. It is a fabrication.

The reality is simple: the people of Iran have never asked to be bombed.