Anti-Iran 'opposition' in West hijacks Pirouz's death for political agenda

By Xavier Villar

The death of Pirouz, an Asiatic cheetah cub born in captivity in Iran on February 28 due to kidney failure, was a tragic event.

Since his birth in the northeastern part of the country, Pirouz had been a source of national pride. According to the veterinarian in charge of his care, Pirouz had a life expectancy of only 60 percent at the time of his birth, and also suffered from digestive issues in the first weeks of his life.

Quite expectedly, anti-Iran forces in the West, who refer to themselves as "Iranian opposition", have hijacked Pirouz's unfortunate death to achieve two interconnected goals.

Firstly, they claim that the Islamic Republic is directly responsible for the animal's death due to lack of proper care, aiming to portray the government as negligent in animal rights and environmental matters.

Secondly, they seek to project imprisoned "environmentalists", arrested by Iran's security agencies for being foreign spies, as victims of a "cruel regime".

Pirouz, which means 'victorious' in Farsi, has become the subject of new anti-Iran propaganda for the so-called "opposition" to delegitimize the democratically-elected government in Iran.

Pirouz's death has been seized upon by this self-proclaimed "opposition" as a pretext to not only criminalize the Islamic Republic but also renew calls for "regime change".

It is evident that this West-backed "opposition" views Pirouz's death as a powerful tool to advance its political agenda and that of Western powers.

They have used it to highlight what they consider the failure of the Islamic Republic in safeguarding the environment and protecting animals as well as humans. They argue that Pirouz's death is an indication of the Islamic Republic's disregard for nature and its inhabitants

While there are undeniable environmental issues in Iran, such as air quality and pollution in major cities such as Tehran, this "opposition" is using these "green" critiques to call for a "regime change" in the Islamic Republic.

In other words, they claim that only a non-Islamic Republic can protect nature and natural resources.

The use of this "green" critique is not something new. For example, the illegitimate Zionist entity has been using "greenwashing" to whitewash its horrendous colonial crimes in the occupied territories of Palestine.

In the Iranian context, the opposition uses green language to present the policies of the Islamic Republic as "ecocidal policies".

According to this argument, the Islamic Republic was not only behind the death of Pirouz, but it was also purposely destroying national ecosystems and even causing harm to ordinary civilians due to its careless management of the environment.

However, the protection of the environment and people is not exclusive to the Western political configuration.

The Islamic Republic has implemented policies to protect the environment that are rooted in an Islamicate tradition, as demonstrated by a speech given by the Leader of the Islamic Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on National Tree Planting Day in March 2022.

This speech emphasized the importance of protecting the environment and regarded it as a human duty and sacred responsibility for the country and its citizens.

The speech is immensely relevant because, as we said, it puts nature at the center of a political discourse that expresses itself in Islamic terms.

There is no need, therefore, to adopt a Western view to protect nature and to build a respectful relationship between human beings and the natural environment.

To defend the contrary, to say that you need a "regime change" in Iran to stop the destruction of nature is a characteristic colonial argument.

We also pointed here to "environmentalists" and spies. Of course, the idea is not to environmentalist work or suggest that all environmentalists in the Islamic Republic are spies.

However, we cannot deny that some spies have disguised themselves as environmentalists in order to spy on the Islamic Republic. They used this cover to gather intelligence on some of the military facilities in the country.

The so-called "opposition" is using Pirouz's death to draw attention to "environmentalists" in prison, portraying them as victims of a state living in constant paranoia.

For them, the death of an animal and imprisonment o "environmentalists" serve as examples of how the Islamic Republic deals with nature and its protection. They argue that the state would rather imprison people or kill an animal than acknowledge its own negligence.

To claim that a "regime change" is necessary to protect nature is a colonial argument. This rhetoric is reminiscent of the "civilizing mission" colonial mindset that viewed natives as incapable of self-governance.

Similarly, the "opposition's" use of Pirouz's death and the imprisonment of environmentalists as examples of the Islamic Republic's negligence in nature conservation is a political argument that hides the true purpose: a regime change.

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk