By Fred Petrossian

Global Voices

A specter is haunting Iran — the threat of a full-fledged war with Israel, stirring fears of devastation reminiscent of Gaza and Lebanon. As tensions escalate, millions of Iranians face the risk of serious harm, either directly or indirectly. Yet, surprisingly, even as the majority of Iranian human rights and civil society organizations are based outside the country, in particular in the West, due to the Islamic Republic’s brutal repression, the majority have remained silent, offering no statements, analyses, or even discussion on the escalating conflict.

To explore the reasons behind this silence, Global Voices interviewed veteran human rights activists who offered insights into the complex factors at play.

Decades of work

Iranian human rights organizations in exile have spent decades raising awarenessabout political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, documenting human rights abuses, and campaigning against state-sanctioned executions and discrimination affecting women, minorities, and journalists. They have also collaborated closely with the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The civil society groups still in Iran, such as the Iran Bar Association, face enormous pressure and restrictions. The Islamic Republic’s authorities even shut down the charity, Imam Ali's Popular Student Relief Society, which worked on combating poverty and helping vulnerable children. Authorities have also imprisoned high-profile activists, such as Nobel Peace laureate Narges Mohammadi who was recently hospitalized with severe health issues.

Mohammadi, who believes in the necessity of regime change in Iran, recently issued an anti-war message: “All those responsible for war are not only condemned by the people of the lands and times they devastate, but they are also forever disgraced and ostracised in the annals of human history.”

Funding matters

But despite these efforts, some Iranian activists and citizens have voiced growing concerns about transparency and funding dependencies. These criticisms suggest that some organizations abroad may be prioritizing certain issues over others due to the influence of funding sources, risking the impression that they operate within a discriminatory framework that fluctuates according to funders’ agendas.

Nazila Golestan, France-based media producer and the speaker of human rights and political organization HamAva, tells Global Voices via WhatsApp that “funding sources heavily influence organizational stances, often undercutting their purported neutrality.”

Having worked with human rights organizations in both Iran and France, she has observed that some groups’ silence on the war reflects an unwillingness to alienate donors. Golestan contends that “the mission of any true human rights organization should include advocating for peace and diplomacy, as conflicts impact civilians first and foremost.”

Matt Forouzandy, an Iranian-Canadian queer activist and interdisciplinary artist, agrees. “Funding sources and associated political agendas are decisive in shaping these organizations’ positions, often resulting in actions aligned with donor expectations rather than a true commitment to human rights,” he tells Global Voices.

Forouzandy, who is one of the voices of Iran's exiled LGBTQ+ community, adds that “these tendencies increasingly disillusion Iranian civil society and activists. He advocates for new, grassroots-driven models to bypass the current challenges and foster more effective human rights advocacy.”

Silence amid escalating conflict

The current silence from human rights groups is particularly notable given the humanitarian stakes. While the raison d’etre of these organizations is to urge the Iranian state to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a full-scale conflict between Iran and Israel could jeopardize the fundamental rights of Iranian people, including the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to education, among others.

This is clear in the ongoing violence in Gaza, where UNICEF reports that “about 9 in 10 of Gaza’s population are estimated to have been internally displaced. Half of them children. They do not have enough access to water, food, fuel and medicine.” Reportedly thousands of children have been killed or injured in the conflict so far.

Furthermore, the war on Lebanon also underscores the profound impacts of such conflicts on civilian populations, where, according to UNICEF, “the conflict has displaced hundreds of thousands of children and their families.”

Risk of alienation

Kamran Ashtray, artist and the executive director of the Nederalnds-based Arseh Sevom NGO which focuses on civil society in Iran, warns in an email to Global Voicesthat “organizations risk alienating the very communities they aim to represent if they selectively address human rights violations.”

He argues that “failing to advocate for peace could create a perception that these organizations align more with external agendas than with the genuine concerns of the Iranian people. Such selectivity could harm the credibility of these groups, both within Iran and on the global stage.”

According to Ashtary, “a balanced approach that condemns internal abuses by the Iranian regime while opposing escalations that threaten civilians would uphold both independence and credibility.”

When these activists talk about funds, the risk of alienating the Iranian people, and keeping the funders happy, what is at stake is an enormous economy of funding largely supported by the U.S. State Department, which has dedicated millions to Iranian civil society initiatives, including approximately USD 30 million initially earmarked for civil society support.

This funding structure has expanded significantly, with the U.S. Department of State’s financial support for just VPN (anti-filtering) tools increasing from USD 5 million in 2019 to over USD 30 million in 2024.

A pivotal moment

The silence haunts Iranian human rights organizations regarding this looming conflict and raises critical questions about their priorities, independence, and future direction.

As tensions between Israel and Iran escalate, human rights organizations face a pivotal moment that calls for reflection on whether neutrality aligns with their fundamental mission.

This crisis presents an opportunity to re-evaluate their goals and strategies, echoing a reminder by German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who fought against silence and the Nazi regime and sacrificed his life: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil… Not to act is to act.” How these organizations respond could ultimately shape the future of human rights advocacy for Iran and the broader region.