BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about an interview on Morning Report with ‘[a]n Iranian woman, living in New Zealand … shocked by the scale of attacks from Israel on Iran’. The complainant alleged the broadcast ‘presented a one-sided narrative critical of Israel’, and omitted significant viewpoints — namely, those of ‘pro-Israel Iranians’ — and vital context. The complainant also alleged the broadcast contained material inaccuracies, by indicating Israel targeted residential buildings and misled listeners regarding the Iranian regime and Israel’s intentions. The Authority found the broadcast was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The audience could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage. Regarding accuracy, the interviewee’s comments about the targeting of buildings were analysis, comment or opinion to which the standard does not apply, and it was not misleading to omit further details regarding Iran or Israel.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 16 June 2025 broadcast of Morning Report featured an interview with Dr Samira Ghoreishi, about attacks by Israel on Iran.

[2]  The segment was introduced as follows:

Morning Report co-host:     An Iranian woman, living in New Zealand, says she’s shocked by the scale of attacks from Israel on Iran. Israel hit nuclear sites, military bases and cities on Friday. Iran has responded with drones, missiles and today, a rare daytime attack. Iran’s Foreign Minister says the strikes will stop once Israel halts its campaign.

Iran Foreign Minister:          We are defending ourselves. This defence is entirely legitimate. We are defending with strength and resolve, and our response is a reaction to aggression. Therefore, if the aggression stops, naturally our responses will also cease.

Morning Report co-host:     Iran has confirmed that the head of the Islamic Revolution Guard’s Intelligence Unit and his deputy have been killed. In an earlier Fox News interview, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, quote, ‘I can tell you we got their Chief Intelligence Officer and his deputy in Tehran.’

[3]  The item then turned to the interview with Ghoreishi, who was introduced as being from ‘the Iranian solidarity community in New Zealand’. The co-host of Morning Report asked Ghoreishi, ‘Have you had a chance to talk to people or communicate with people in Iran and how they are faring?’ She responded:

…[T]he moment that Israel attacked, actually, the Iranian regime inside Iran, instead of helping people, they cut the internet. So, it’s not easy to communicate. But … despite the fact that they keep saying that Israel attacked only the IRGC commander or the nuclear sites, this is not true. Actually, many of the buildings that they targeted, these people live in very busy residential buildings. One of the building[s] was actually the building next to my sister’s house. And they’ve been so shocked and crying … Even another building was very close to my sister-in-law. And [my sister-in-law] called, and she had a little one at home, and crying and asking me, ‘Do you think the next place would be our place?’

But really, it’s shocking. It’s sad. With activists, I’ve received some of the communications and pictures and texts. Many of the activists inside, and also actually outside Iran, we are sad… [W]e never expect [the] Islamic regime to really think about their own people. They are just a brutal regime. And all this oppression, pressure on opposition inside Iran, and all the social and political activists inside Iran. But actually, many of Iranians we know that don’t want war because actually, during the war, the situation would be even worse.

During the war, Islamic regime, they put more pressure on activists, on civil society, on grassroots organisations. Currently, the moment Israel attacks, don’t think they [the Islamic regime] are worried first about the foreign fires. They are worried about the activists inside Iran. They send messages threatening people – ‘don't put anything on social media’. They put pressure on political prisoners inside the Evin prison. And now, they are also very much concerned about more execution of political prisoners under the name of, they are spying for Israel.

[4]  After explaining that Ghoreishi is ‘part of a group which has obviously been protesting the Iranian regime’, the co-host asked, ‘There has been some suggestion by some that Netanyahu is looking for regime change in Iran. But is it your feedback that people on the ground are simply just scared for their own lives and that it’s unlikely that there would be some sort of protest in reaction to that?’ Ghoreishi responded:

Actually, no. I think inside Iran, many of the activists – I’ve been always in touch with them, I’ve [been] part of it when I was in Iran. I can tell you that, yes, they want freedom, they wanted democracy. That’s the reason that many times, actually, in the last couple of years, we had big uprising[s]: 2009 Green Movement, then later Women Live Freedom in Iran. Civil society and grassroots organisations and activists have been active and … they never wanted a war because … there would be no freedom or good situation, especially when a … foreign power that [is] already committing genocide in another side of the Middle East [says they] can bring freedom or democracy to Iran. 

And it’s so interesting for me that they keep talking about attacking the nuclear sites. But actually, no, now they have attacked the gas and oil resources. These are … civilian, national assets. So, how Netanyahu address people of Iran, and saying that, ‘Oh, the regime will fall, like, what about the future?’ Actually, no. We are thinking about the future after they fall. These assets are for people in Iran to rebuild their history and their life. People inside Iran and activists always mention, we want to lead our own history and write our own history. But many times, they request international community and leaders for support, and I would say actually this is a failure of them that brings this…

[5]  The item ended as follows:

Morning Report co-host:      Very interesting. And if I just jump in to finish… are there shelters? …[W]hat sort-of proactive steps is the regime taking to help those– are people trying to leave the cities? What are you being told? 

Ghoreishi:                              Yeah, almost nothing. You know, after Israel announced that people, please … be away from military or weapon production facilities or arms manufacturing sites, many Iranians actually, including my family and friends, saying that, ‘Actually, where are these areas?’ Because … if you live in Iran, you know that these areas – many of them – are, like, secret. You have no idea if next door they are doing anything around military, you know. And now Israel is saying, ‘Be away from there’. And [Iranians] said that, ‘Okay, what are these area[s] and where we can go?’ There is no communication… 

Morning Report co-host:       Samira– 

Ghoreishi:                              I think [the] government announced now, just recently, that they can go use the metro, the subway. But then people don’t believe this regime. So, they said that people don’t go to the metro because we will be stuck. 

Morning Report co-host:     Samira, I understand, and thank you very much for talking to us this morning. It sounds as though it’s a traumatic experience for your friends and family, and we do appreciate you speaking to us and updating us on the situation on the ground in Iran this morning.

The complaint

[6]  Dr Morteza Sharifi, in his capacity as the Chair of Focus on Iran, complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. The complainant’s key points are summarised below, under the standards we consider most applicable to each point:

Balance

[7]  Submissions relevant to the balance standard were:

• ‘The interview addressed Israel’s attacks on Iran, a highly contentious geopolitical matter, and [the perspectives presented] unambiguously aligned with the Iranian regime’s narrative.’
• The interview ‘presented a one-sided narrative critical of Israel’, framing Israel’s attacks ‘as unprovoked aggression’.
• It ‘excluded significant viewpoints, notably those of pro-Israel Iranians… who view these attacks as a legitimate response to the regime’s terrorism and nuclear ambitions’. ‘A significant portion of the Iranian diaspora… supports Israel’s defensive measures against a regime that threatens both its own people and regional stability. This perspective, rooted in firsthand experience and a rejection of Tehran’s tyranny, was entirely erased from the discussion’.
• Dr Ghoreishi was ‘presented as a spokesperson for the Iranian community’ with no evidence ‘to substantiate her mandate to speak for Iranians, a population marked by profound diversity of thought’.
• The interview also omitted critical context: ‘the Iranian regime’s role as a global sponsor of terrorism, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its brutal suppression of dissent – factors central to understanding Israel’s actions. By excluding this context, [Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ)] not only distorted the story but also lent tacit sympathy to a regime opposed by many Iranians…’.
• ‘RNZ’s choice to platform a single, regime-sympathetic viewpoint smacks of ideological prejudice, masquerading as journalism.’

Accuracy

[8]  Submissions regarding accuracy are set out below, though comments outlined above regarding the omission of context are also relevant in considering these issues:

• Statements made by the interviewee ‘contained material inaccuracies that RNZ aired without verification’, such as ‘Israel targeted “busy residential buildings” and caused widespread civilian harm’, and ‘the Iranian regime’s supposed restraint’. 
• The former ‘implies deliberate civilian targeting’, which ‘lacks evidence and contradicts reports (e.g., BBC, 17 June 2025) that Israel’s strikes focused on military and nuclear sites with precision measures to minimise civilian harm’.
• ‘Such claims, delivered with emotional hyperbole, align suspiciously with the Iranian regime’s propaganda playbook. RNZ’s failure to demand verification or provide context betrays its duty to relay facts, not serve as a megaphone for unverified narratives.’
• Unchallenged, such claims ‘misled listeners about the nature and intent of Israel’s actions’.

Fairness

[9]  Under fairness, the complainant said:

• The broadcast ‘unfairly marginalised pro-Israel Iranians, a group I represent as Chair of Focus on Iran’.
• ‘By exclusively platforming [views which] echo the Iranian regime, RNZ unfairly sidelined the significant pro-Israel perspectives held by many in the Iranian diaspora’. ‘This exclusion distorted the diversity of Iranian opinion, effectively silencing those who have “risked their lives” opposing Tehran…’.

Freedom of expression and editorial discretion

[10]  The complainant also said:

• Freedom of expression extends to all, not just those the broadcaster has chosen to promote.
• RNZ did not cite any contemporaneous broadcasts countering the narrative in this programme, undermining its ‘claim of broader context’.
• RNZ’s refusal to include other perspectives suggests a belief ‘their editorial decisions are unassailable’. This is ‘an attempt to dictate a narrative, betraying their taxpayer-funded mandate to inform’.

The broadcaster’s response

[11]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

• The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion. The standard ‘does not require that every possible view on a complex issue be contained within one broadcast’.
• The broadcast did not ‘describe or characterise [Ghoreishi] as a spokesperson for the Iranian community’. The introduction described her ‘as “an Iranian woman living in New Zealand”’. ‘The interview with Dr Ghoreishi reflected her personal views and experiences and was not framed or introduced as a balanced examination of the wider conflict between Israel and Iran.’  
• ‘[Ghoreishi] is free to hold and express her own views on the Israeli and Iranian regimes and the recent attacks affecting her family’ and ‘this freedom of expression is guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990’. Her ‘description of the nature of the attacks and their effects on her family are her genuine perspective and expressed in her own words’.
• ‘The background to Israel’s attacks on Iran is very widely known and understood by the audience.’ ‘Since the interview with Dr Ghoreishi on June 16, RNZ has broadcast 35 items dealing with the Israel/Iran conflict. This coverage explores a very wide range of perspectives and provides a balance of views over the period of interest.’

Accuracy

• ‘The interview with Dr Ghoreishi was preceded by a factual summary of the latest news on the hostilities between Israel and Iran.’ Dr Ghoreishi was interviewed ‘to convey her perspective and the experience of her family living in the targeted area. The former is very strictly governed by the Accuracy standard – the latter is less so.’ 

Fairness

• The purpose of the fairness standard ‘is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes. It does not address “fairness” to the audience or whether issues/facts are “fairly” or misleadingly conveyed (which are matters for the accuracy or balance standards)’. All individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in the broadcast were treated fairly. ‘Dr Sharifi and his organisation, Focus on Iran, were neither referred to nor involved.’

Freedom of expression and editorial discretion

• The complaint is about ‘the type of programming a complainant would prefer to be included or not included. This is a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference. The Authority’s role is to consider complaints about whether content broadcast has breached broadcasting standards, not to change broadcasters’ content to what a complainant may wish to see included’.

Jurisdiction: implying standards

[12]  The Broadcasting Act 1989 requires broadcasters to ‘receive and consider formal complaints about any programme broadcast’.¹ To be a ‘formal complaint’, a complaint must ‘constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with section 4’ – ie that the broadcaster has failed to comply with one or more broadcasting standards.²

[13]  The complainant cited the balance, accuracy and fairness standards in his referral to the BSA. However, his original complaint to RNZ did not explicitly specify which broadcasting standards he considered were breached. The Authority can only consider standards which were not raised in an original complaint if those standards can be reasonably implied into the wording of the complaint, and doing so is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.³

[14]  We are satisfied the original complaint implied breaches of the balance and accuracy standards, given the complainant’s reference to ‘[p]ro-Israel Iranian voices’ being ‘wholly absent from the broadcast’, the sharing of ‘unverified narratives’, and the omission of critical context ‘distorting the story’.

[15]  We do not consider the fairness standard can be reasonably implied into the wording of the original complaint. It does not address unfairness to any individual or organisation ‘taking part or referred to in’ the broadcast as required under this standard. The complainant asserted the broadcast ‘unfairly marginalised pro-Israel Iranians, a group [the complainant] represent[s] as Chair of Focus on Iran’. However, ‘pro-Israel Iranians’ are not an organisation and Focus on Iran neither participated in, nor was referred to in the broadcast.⁴ The complainant’s concerns regarding the absence of such voices can be satisfactorily dealt with under the balance standard.

[16]  Accordingly, our decision does not address the fairness standard.

The standards

[17]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁵ The standard states:⁶

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[18]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁷ The standard states:⁸

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our analysis

[19]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[20]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁹

Balance

[21]  Various criteria must be satisfied before the balance standard’s requirement to present alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.

[22]  We consider the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance – the Israel-Iran conflict – and so the standard applies. However, we do not find any breach of the balance standard for the reasons outlined below.

[23]  Guideline 5.4 states the requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced or negated where the programme’s introduction and presentation make it clear the programme is:

• not intended to be a balanced examination of an issue
• approaching an issue from a particular perspective, or
• narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger, complex matter.¹⁰

[24]  In this case, the broadcast did not purport to provide a balanced examination of perspectives on the broader Israel-Iran conflict.¹¹ The programme included a brief (53-second) introduction and update on events before turning to the interview, which extended for the remainder of the seven-and-a-half-minute segment. Dr Ghoreishi was introduced as ‘an Iranian woman living in New Zealand … shocked by the scale of attacks from Israel on Iran’, and as being ‘from the Iranian solidarity community in New Zealand’. She shared information from friends and family based in Iran. She was not ‘presented as a spokesperson for the Iranian community’, as suggested by the complainant, nor as a representative of any organisation.

[25]  Dr Ghoreishi’s comments also did not align with ‘the Iranian regime’s narrative’. She criticised the Iranian government multiple times during the interview, providing listeners with some feel for its treatment of citizens and suppression of dissent. For example:

• ‘…[T]he moment that Israel attacked, actually, the Iranian regime inside Iran, instead of helping people, they cut the internet. So, it’s not easy to communicate.’
• ‘...[W]e never expect [the] Islamic regime to really think about their own people. They are just a brutal regime.’
• ‘Currently, the moment Israel attacks, don’t think they [the Islamic regime] are worried first about the foreign fires. They are worried about the activists inside Iran. They send messages threatening people – “don’t put anything on social media”.’

[26]  Finally, the wording of the balance standard, set out at paragraph [17], states that alternative perspectives on relevant issues will not be required where ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’. This reflects New Zealand’s current broadcasting environment, including the proliferation of information available to audiences and a more discerning viewing/listening public.¹² The Israel-Iran conflict, also known as the Twelve-Day War, has been frequently covered in a range of media,¹³ including by RNZ (as outlined in their decision).¹⁴ It is therefore reasonable to expect listeners to be aware of significant viewpoints on the issues addressed in the broadcast.

[27]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[28]  The complainant suggests the broadcast breached the accuracy standard by:

• saying ‘Israel targeted residential buildings’, and
• misleading listeners about the ‘Iranian regime’s supposed restraint’ and the nature and intent of Israel’s actions.

Targeting of residential buildings

[29]  In the interview, Dr Ghoreishi said:

…they keep saying that Israel attacked only the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] commander or the nuclear sites, this is not true. Actually, many of the buildings that they [Israel] targeted, these people live in very busy residential buildings. One of the building[s] was actually the building next to my sister’s house… Even another building was very close to my sister-in-law.

[30]  Guideline 6.1 states the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact. However, broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts:

• referred to; or
• upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based.

[31]  In assessing whether a statement was a statement of fact, or was analysis, comment or opinion, the following factors may be relevant:¹⁵

• the language used
• the type of programme
• the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter
• whether the statement is attributed to someone
• whether evidence or proof is provided.

[32]  Based on these factors we find the statement was analysis, comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The interview provided Dr Ghoreishi’s perspective – that of an Iranian resident in New Zealand who did not purport to speak on behalf of any local or other organisation, or to have any specific knowledge or insight regarding Israeli military objectives and actions beyond what her contacts had told her. Listeners can be expected to understand the challenges of obtaining definitive information in the aftermath of such bombings.¹⁶

[33]  Further, numerous sources, including the United Nations, reported that in the days leading up to this broadcast, Israel bombed residential buildings in Iran.¹⁷ Therefore, we consider there was no obligation on the broadcaster to question the facts upon which Dr Ghoreishi’s comments were based.

[34]  Even if Dr Ghoreishi’s comments were inaccurate, they would not significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the broadcast as a whole,¹⁸ which focused on the interviewee’s perspective on the ‘scale of attacks from Israel on Iran’ and the challenges some were experiencing in Iran, rather than the objectives of Israel’s military operation.

Misleading listeners regarding the Iranian regime and Israel’s intentions

[35]  While broadcasts can be misleading by omission, this item was not inaccurate or materially misleading by omitting further details about the Iranian regime or Israel’s intentions. It was within RNZ’s editorial discretion to choose the focus of its coverage and, as noted under balance, RNZ and other media covered other aspects of the conflict in other reports.

[36]  Given the international significance of the events described, and ongoing nature of the conflict between the two countries, RNZ’s listeners are likely to have some understanding of the background to developments. This meant RNZ’s editorial choice to present Dr Ghoreishi’s perspective was unlikely to result in listeners being misled.

[37]  Freedom of expression is, as suggested by the complainant, a right which extends to the expression of other perspectives on this conflict. However, it does not require all such perspectives or context to be presented in each broadcast.

[38]  We have identified no harm sufficient to justify our intervention in RNZ’s exercise of freedom of expression and do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
1 October 2025    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Dr Sharifi’s original complaint – 17 June 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 24 June 2025

3  Dr Sharifi’s referral to the Authority – 24 June 2025

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 10 July 2025

5  Dr Sharifi’s further comments – 10 July 2025

6  RNZ’s further comments – 14 July 2025

7  Dr Sharifi’s further comments – 15 July 2025

8  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 15 July 2025

¹ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 6(1)(a)
² Broadcasting Act 1989, s 6(1)(a); WM and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-011 at [17]
³ Attorney-General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁴ For a similar finding, see  Jervis & Robertson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-103 at [31]
⁵ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁸ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹¹ Guideline 5.4; For a similar finding, see Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [15]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [12]; Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [26]
¹² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹³ Steve Inskeep and Destinee Adams “Why did Israel strike Iran? An Israeli politician and a U.S.-Iran expert weigh in” NPR (online ed, 13 June 2025); Michael Safi with Ellie Geranmayeh “Afraid of Israel, angry at the regime: Iranians on 12 days of war – podcast” The Guardian (online ed, 26 June 2025); Marco Milanovic “In international law, is Israel’s use of force against Iran justified by self-defence?” ABC (online ed, 18 June 2025); Amanda Taub “Are Israel’s Airstrikes on Iran Within Legal Bounds?” The New York Times (online ed, 20 June 2025); Lana Lam, Sofia Ferreira Santos, Jaroslav Lukiv & Nathan Williams “Israel-Iran: How did latest conflict start and where could it lead?” BBC (online ed, 19 June 2025) 
¹⁴ “Timeline: Iran and Israel’s open warfare after decades of shadow war” RNZ (online ed, 13 June 2025); Checkpoint “Israel launches major attack on Iran” RNZ (online ed, 13 June 2025) Saturday Morning “Israel and Iran strikes” RNZ (online ed, 14 June 2025); Nine to Noon “Update on Iran-Israel conflict” RNZ (online ed, 16 June 2025); “Donald Trump says Israel strikes on Iran were ‘very successful'” RNZ (online ed, 14 June 2025); Steven Scheer, Steve Holland and Parisa Hafezi “Donald Trump calls for Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender’ as war rages on” RNZ (online ed, 18 June 2025); Alexander Cornwell and James Oliphant “Iran, Israel launch new attacks after Tehran rules out nuclear talks” RNZ (online ed, 21 June 2025); Alice Chancellor, Sebastien Ricci, Ahmad Parhizi and Elodie Le Maou “Israel warns of ‘prolonged’ war against Iran, UN head asks to ‘give peace a chance” RNZ (online ed, 21 June 2025); Menna Zaki, Ahmad Parhizi and Adam Plowright “Iran threatens ‘more devastating’ response to Israel’s attacks” RNZ (online ed, 22 June 2025)
¹⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁶ For a similar finding see Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No, 2024-004 at [13]
¹⁷ United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (20 June 2025) “UN experts condemn Israeli attack on Iran and urge end to hostilities” <ohchr.org>; Farnaz Fassihi “Residents of Tehran Awake to Devastation” The New York Times (online ed, 13 June 2025); Maziar Motamedi “Shock, fear in Tehran after Israel bombs residential, military areas” Al Jazeera (online ed, 13 June 2025)
¹⁸ Guideline 6.2