The Trump Administration has accused CNN of supporting the Islamic State regime in Iran through its reporting. Similar accusations have been made against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In the UK, Channel 4 has been criticised for not challenging pro-Iranian regime rhetoric.
Is this part of a propaganda campaign launched by the Iranian regime targeting Western audiences?
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Iranian state media and its international allies have consistently framed protests in Iran as foreign-backed “riots” to delegitimise dissent. Anti-Jewish rhetoric plays a significant role in the Islamic State’s propaganda, particularly in the West.
A report published by the Institute of Strategic Dialogue (“ISD”) at the end of February summarised the responses to the Iranian protests by state and non-state supporters of the regime between 28 December 2025 and 17 January 2026.
It describes how Iranian state-linked accounts, including Press TV and official government channels, accused the US and Israel of instigating unrest in Iran, while downplaying or ignoring civilian casualties. These narratives were amplified by Iran’s regional proxies – such as Kata’ib Hezbollah, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis – as well as Russia and China.
Some of the key findings of IDS’ report were:
Iranian state messengers framed protests as “riots” instigated by the US and Israeli agents. They also accused the US of hypocrisy over fatal shootings at domestic protests and human rights violations in Gaza.
Western far-right pro-regime accounts blamed Israel for the violence. Content often included antisemitic tropes such as claims that Israel was covertly manipulating the US into the conflict.
Western far-left pro-regime accounts usually blamed either Israel or the US. Accounts which centred Israel’s role often drew on antisemitic narratives, while those which centred the US drew more on ‘anti-imperialist’ narratives.
Axis of amplification: Regime media, proxies and Western supporters respond to Iranian protests, Institute of Strategic Dialogue, 27 February 2026
IDS’ report concludes: “The Iranian regime pursued a twofold response to the nationwide protests that broke out in December last year: stalling the free flow of information, both within, and in and out of the country through significant Internet restrictions, and manipulating the online discourse surrounding the protests, mostly by re-characterising them as ‘foreign-backed riots’ … State messaging aimed to undermine and deflect international criticism (and critics) of extreme repression likely amounting to crimes against humanity, which was amplified by Russia, regional proxy groups and Western extremists and conspiracy theorists.”
An article in The Conversation states that, at the same time as creating an internet blackout for Iranians, the Iranian regime has launched a propaganda campaign to target Western audiences online about the current conflict:
Iranian civilians might be disconnected from the global internet. But Iranian officials and their key supporters remain actively engaged on foreign online platforms.
In fact, senior government figures have sought to launch an information operation on X. This operation seeks to influence international public opinion and pressure the White House to end the war.
A key effort is to target segments of Trump’s political base associated with the America First movement.
Iran’s regime has shut down the internet in the middle of war – placing civilians in the crosshairs, The Conversation, 6 March 2026
In contrast, independent journalists and media organisations, particularly those in exile, have reported under extreme conditions, facing digital blackouts, cyberattacks and threats to their families. Despite the regime’s efforts to control the information environment, exiled media outlets continue to provide critical reporting, though access remains severely limited.
Related: War in Iran: journalism in crisis as access to information restricted and reporters work amid bombs, Reporters Without Borders
Social media is not the only media that the Iranian regime and its proxies are using to target Western populations.
Yesterday, a Trump administration official, Assistant Secretary of State for Global Public Affairs Dylan Johnson, labelled a CNN report from Iran as “straight up pro-Iran regime propaganda,” claiming the network was aiding the Iranian government.
Frederik Pleitgen, CNN’s senior international correspondent, is reporting from Iran after being granted a visa by the Iranian government, marking the first time a US network has entered the country since the US and Israel launched military strikes on Iran in late February 2026.
His on-the-ground reports, including footage of open shops, available fuel and lack of visible panic, have sparked controversy. Johnson criticised Pleitgen’s reporting on Twitter (now X), calling it “straight up pro-Iran regime propaganda because someone gave this guy a coffee.”
Critics, including Honest Reporting, argue that Pleitgen’s coverage lacks balance, citing interviews that appear to reflect only regime-approved sentiments and omitting dissenting voices. Honest Reporting suggests the Iranian government controls access and likely guides the reporting, raising concerns about the authenticity of the on-the-ground portrayal.
It’s not only CNN that is coming under fire for suspicions of airing Islamic State-approved reports. Australia’s ABC is also being accused of the same.
Yesterday, Sky News Australia Digital Editor Jack Houghton blasted the media that are siding with the “terrorist theocracy” of Iran over the “very vulnerable” and oppressed Iranians.
John Lyons, America’s Editor at ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), labelled support for the Iranian people as propaganda. Lyons said support for the Iranian people was really propaganda to support the US-Israeli strikes on the Iranian regime.
“You pay for his opinion commentary to be dressed up as news,” Houghton said. “And the ABC defended it, arguing that their employee was actually an expert. So, he didn’t really need to be impartial.”
“This triggered a rare moment of unity across the political spectrum when Lyons was savaged for being out of touch and for ignoring the plight of women beaten in the streets, and the tens of thousands of protestors slaughtered for simply standing up to the radical Muslim regime.”
Notably, as reported by the Daily Wire, some Western feminist groups are campaigning to oppose US-Israel military actions against Iran. This “feminist” stance supports not only a murderous regime but also an Islamic regime responsible for the widespread suppression of human rights, including women’s rights.
The UK corporate media is not much better than that in Australia.
While Channel 4 is mildly critical of Iran’s government and highlights internal dissent, human rights abuses and geopolitical tensions, it has drawn criticism for platforming voices sympathetic to Iran without sufficient challenge. An example of this is an interview aired on 28 February 2026, between Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman and former British ambassador to Tehran, Richard Dalton.
During the interview, Dalton made several spurious claims: that there is “no evidence of an Iranian nuclear programme,” that the US attack on Iran was a “massacre” and he denied Iran’s genocidal rhetoric toward Israel. Before conducting the interview, Newman would have known Dalton’s anti-Zionist bias. In a July 2025 interview with Declassified UK, for example, Dalton said that the US and Israel pose a greater regional threat than Iran.
Critics, including CAMERA and The Spectator, have accused Newman of failing to challenge Dalton’s assertions.
“Sadly for Channel 4 News viewers, Cathy Newman not only failed to cross-examine or shame Dalton like she tried to do with Jordan Peterson, but treated him with kid gloves, thereby legitimising the former ambassador’s diatribe about the West that was akin to what you’d expect to hear on Iran’s Press TV,” CAMERA said.
In January, William Atkinson wrote in The Spectator about Dalton and other figures in the UK who have been shilling for the Iranian regime. In 1979, Roger Cooper wrote an article for The Spectator. In it, he suggested that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader of Iran, offered Iranians “the chance to resume their true national and cultural identity.”
Khomeini’s rule was marked by strict theocratic governance, vehement anti-Western rhetoric (he called the US “the Great Satan”) and controversial actions.
“Cooper can be forgiven for failing to realise just how miserable the Islamic Republic would be. At the time, western commentators, most prominently Michel Foucault, were falling over themselves to celebrate Khomeini’s ascension,” Atkinson said. “But what cannot be forgiven is those who, for the past four decades, have continued to defend the regime he established, long after its grim reality became apparent.”
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
C’m on, Rhoda, you are treating the propaganda of one side as fact!
Not comfortable with this Zionist propaganda.
The Institute of Strategic Dialogue (“ISD”). Funded by Soros and Gates campaigns strongly against anti semitism. It has much in common with organisations such as Hope not Hate that spread misinformation in order to stifle those whose opinions differ whilst proclaiming to defend democracy and free speech.