TEHRAN- In this exclusive interview with Tehran Times, Christopher Helali, an American journalist, political analyst, and activist known for his coverage of international conflicts and U.S. foreign policy, shares his observations following his recent visit to Iran as part of a delegation of international journalists.

During his field reporting tour across areas affected by the Israeli–U.S. attacks, including major scientific, medical, and civilian infrastructure sites, he offers firsthand accounts of the scale of destruction and the humanitarian impact on affected communities. Helali also reflects on visits to military sites and the Strait of Hormuz, providing his perspective on Iran’s security posture and daily life under heightened regional tensions. The interview further explores his views on Western media narratives, Iranian societal resilience, and the historical and cultural factors shaping Iran’s response to external pressure.

The following is the full text of the interview:

You have visited areas affected by the US attacks. What was the first thing you saw on the ground that made you realize the reality was very different from what audiences are told?

Well, first and foremost, the scale of destruction was unbelievable. I mean, we’re talking about very heavy munitions being used against civilian infrastructure. When we went to Shahid Baheshti University and the plasma center, it was completely annihilated. When we went to the information center at Sharif University, it was completely destroyed. We went to the Pasteur Institute—the Pasteur Institute, which deals with vaccines—and it was annihilated. Many buildings were absolutely destroyed.

We also went to Gandhi Hospital. All of the fertility treatment areas and all of the facilities for this kind of work—helping people with infertility—were completely destroyed. So when you see the reality on the ground, what stands out is the brutality and barbarism of this aggression against the Iranian people.

On the other hand, what we also witnessed was the resilience and solidarity of the Iranian people with one another. People rushed to help each other; they took care of so many situations collectively. There was no mass looting, no violence, and no social instability. Instead, there was strong social cohesion and a clear effort to support neighbors and those affected.

This was something you would not understand from outside, because the way it is often portrayed is almost the opposite—that such attacks would lead to social instability or the destruction of the fabric of Iranian society. But in fact, the fabric of Iranian society that we observed was one of solidarity, care for neighbors, and mutual support.

Everywhere we went, people were deeply concerned about one another—concerned about workers, about those affected, about families who had lost loved ones, or whose relatives were injured or had passed away. There was a great deal of aid and mutual support during this time, which was very reassuring. It showed that Iranian society is highly resilient and deeply committed to defending its communities and its nation against such aggression.

Did you have the opportunity to speak with survivors of the attacks or with the families of the victims, particularly those affected by the Minab school strike?

Yes, we did. We had the opportunity to speak with a grandfather who came to the school right as the attacks were happening, in an attempt to rescue his daughter and granddaughter. He also spoke about friends of the family who were present at the time. In the end, he lost these family members, and he was very emotional.

We also spoke with people who were nearby the scene of this act of aggression. It was very clear that they were overwhelmed with emotion. And I think when you see that—when you understand that these people have lived through a tremendous trauma—we are talking about a massacre. It is not a simple attack. This was a massacre of human beings: children, teachers, staff members, parents, and passersby. It deeply affected them, and it also shaped the way they now view the war being waged against them.

We also spoke with survivors of other bombings here in Tehran, and especially in Isfahan, including around cultural areas where cultural workers were present near some of the strikes. When you speak to them, they are simply shocked by the level of brutality and the intensity of the bombings.

It is one thing to target military sites—that is, in the context of war, something that unfortunately happens. But to bomb civilian infrastructure, to bomb cultural sites, to bomb residential apartment buildings and similar areas—this is something that left the survivors overwhelmed with emotion. They experienced this level of violence while they were non-combatants, while they were civilians, and they should be protected under international law.

 You filmed yourself standing among the wreckage of a U.S. military aircraft in Isfahan. How did witnessing the scene change your own understanding of the operation and its outcome?

I mean, for me, first of all, it showed that this was “Tabas 2.0.” This was another major failure of the United States in Iran. In 1980, during Operation Eagle Claw—the attempt by President Jimmy Carter and the U.S. military to rescue the hostages—the operation ended in complete disaster. This was another moment when the United States attempted to carry out a special operation in Iran, and once again it ended in absolute failure.

To see people come out to this remote airstrip in Esfahan and celebrate what they viewed as a victory—something I also understand as, in their view, a form of divine providence—was striking. From their perspective, the operation failed on every level. They achieved nothing. In fact, they lost everything.

We saw C-130 aircraft modified for special operations, “Little Bird” helicopters, and various pieces of equipment scattered across the site. All of this was there in front of us. Seeing the propellers, engine parts, and the markings—Lockheed Martin, manufacturing tags, and serial numbers—you are reminded that this is ultimately financed by taxpayers. These were American resources.

You could sense a level of frustration and failure in the American side, because operating in Iran’s home territory is extremely difficult. The terrain is challenging, and the operational environment is not easy for them. From that perspective, this was viewed locally as a major success for Iran, even though the United States may frame it differently in its own narrative.

The atmosphere among the people present was one of jubilation. It felt like a celebration, almost like a festival—a festival of what they considered victory. It was a moment of celebrating the success of the Iranian nation and its armed forces over what they see as aggression.

Wyatt (Wyatt Reed; The Grayzone correspondent) and I, along with many other journalists, documented the scene. We took videos and gathered information on site. I also did a live broadcast on RT, and it was important to show the world what was actually happening there. It was, to my knowledge, one of the first live broadcasts by a foreign journalist from that location.

For me, it was significant because there was a lot of propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation surrounding the event. Being there allowed us to see the reality directly. We saw equipment, bullet markings, barcodes, manufacturing dates, parachutes—everything on the ground.

I also had the opportunity to address the crowd. It was a very emotional experience, something I will not forget.

 You also visited the Strait of Hormuz. After seeing the area, how would you describe both the military atmosphere there and the daily life of people living there?

Daily life is normal. People are continuing their lives as usual. Life goes on. We saw many people going out and carrying out their normal activities.

The military presence, of course, is evident. This is now a sensitive military area under the control of the IRGC Navy. It is firmly secured. This is Iran’s territorial waters, and it has full rights under international law to exercise sovereignty over its territorial waters.

When we went out by boat toward the islands and close to the Strait of Hormuz, you could see that everything was in order. There were no issues. Everything appeared organized and structured. You could see ships still with engines running, with personnel present, and operations continuing. People were waiting for clearance to move.

But life continues. Iran continues to exercise its rights. We also saw speedboats—whether naval or otherwise, it was not entirely clear—but what was evident was that there is control, there is order, and there is discipline. There is no chaos at sea. Everything appeared structured and managed.

I was genuinely surprised by the level of organization, especially in the context of heightened tensions in the region. Even with what is described as a blockade further south in the Arabian Sea and in the Strait of Hormuz, and the presence of systems controlling maritime movement, things are still functioning. Ships are moving. Activity continues. Iran is exercising its full rights.

It was remarkable to be there as one of the first foreign journalists, after the previous media teams, to witness the situation firsthand—on the ground and at sea. The level of discipline and control was striking, as was Iran’s assertion of its sovereign rights.

From this perspective, it is clear that any attempt by external actors to impose control or pressure in this area would face significant difficulty. This entire region is firmly under Iran’s control, and Iran maintains a strategic advantage both on the islands and in the Strait.

What is the single most important truth about Iran during this war that you believe Western audiences still do not understand?

I think Western audiences do not understand that, for Iranians, the stories of their heroic ancestors—both pre-Islamic and Islamic—whether it is the defeat of Roman emperors or the martyrdom in Karbala, are deeply embedded in their national consciousness.

Iranians are willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation, without money and without payment. This is not transactional for them. They have done it before, during the eight-year war imposed by Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime, which was supported by the West against Iran. And they would do it again—they are doing it now.

Iranians are highly patriotic. Many are deeply devout in their religious beliefs, some more, some less. But these narratives are often misunderstood.

The key point is that Iranians are willing to sacrifice themselves. Iran will persevere against all odds. Iranians do not need to be paid to fight. They will fight with nothing. Even if they are reduced to swords and spears, they will resist any aggressor who comes against them.

This is what I believe is so important for international audiences to understand. This is where the West has repeatedly miscalculated. There was an assumption that by targeting senior leadership—whether political, military, or symbolic figures—by destroying infrastructure and bases, Iran would collapse or submit.

But what is not understood is that the heart and soul, the enduring flame of Iran, lies in the dignity of its people and their historical resistance to oppression and foreign aggression. Until this is understood, such strategies will continue to fail.

Every attempt to dominate or control this land throughout history has ultimately failed. And I think that is the lesson—of this war, of previous wars, and of Iranian history as a whole, going back thousands of years.