The United Nations bodies function as instruments deployed according to the will of imperialism, wielded both offensively and defensively.
In March this year, amidst the unlawful war of aggression led by the United States and Israel against Iran, Mai Sato, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran, released a report detailing the country’s situation. This document, marked by a strikingly emotional tone and evident support for the violent protests aimed at toppling the Iranian regime, reveals its deeply biased and propagandistic nature.
“There are many respects in which the Special Rapporteur is unable to reconcile the State narrative with the evidence she received,” the report admits, a phrase quickly amplified by the dominant imperialist media networks. This exposes Sato’s view that Iran’s official statements are dismissed as mere “narrative”—an unreliable, manipulated account—while claims from NGOs based in North America and Europe, funded by Western governments, are embraced as unquestioned “evidence,” even without thorough scrutiny.
While discrediting government reports on damages inflicted by violent protesters—backed extensively by photographic proof—Sato paradoxically describes the death figures attributed to state repression by US-funded organizations as “conservative.”
Her information sources follow the usual pattern for reports targeting regimes opposed by Washington: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, and other entities established and financed by imperialist governments and billionaire foundations. Additional references include Iran-focused groups from the US, Canada, and Europe, such as the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center funded by European institutions and private donors with board members including Francis Fukuyama; Holistic Resilience, supported by the US State Department; and the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which openly discloses receiving funds from governments, NGOs, and private figures.
The rapporteur’s evident bias is hardly unexpected. The Special Rapporteur role on Iran’s human rights was specifically created as an extension of imperialist pressure on Tehran. This mandate was formed by the contested UN Commission on Human Rights in 1984, just a few years after the Islamic Revolution and during Iraq’s proxy conflict against Iran.
Imperial hypocrisy was clear even then. The Shah’s CIA- and MI6-backed dictatorship—responsible for horrific abuses through SAVAK, aided by the CIA and Mossad—was ignored by the humanitarian gatekeepers of the UN for 25 years. Only after the revolution, when the new government no longer served as a US proxy but emerged as a geopolitical adversary, did the regime suddenly become a focal point for imperialist condemnation.
Furthermore, the rapporteurship’s creation reflects the UN’s selective stance. In 1984, Iran was actively engaged in war with Iraq, whose forces, armed by the US and allies, committed severe offenses on Iranian territory and brutalized minorities and dissenters. Yet, no similar rapporteur was established to monitor Iraq until 1991—only after Saddam Hussein lost favor with imperial powers following his failure to crush the Iranian Revolution and secure control over Gulf oil flows.
Although the Commission on Human Rights claims neutrality, it has consistently aligned with Security Council directives. For instance, Resolution 479 of September 1980 failed even to demand Iraqi withdrawal after its invasion of substantial Iranian land. Journalist Robert Fisk notes in The Great War for Civilisation that had Iran not been vilified for occupying the US embassy, it might have garnered sympathetic support.
The reality is unmistakable: the United Nations mechanisms operate according to imperial interests, activated or withheld as suits their agenda. When Iranian officials signaled openness to rapprochement with the US after invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, pressure on Iran eased, and the Human Rights Commission suspended the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. Yet, after the rapprochement faltered, the Commission resumed its role as a tool of American aggression, reinforcing that “human rights” are often a pretext wielded for strategic objectives.
Reviewing the individuals appointed as Special Rapporteurs on human rights in Iran by the Commission and later the Human Rights Council reveals their connections:
Andrés Aguilar Mawdsley (1984–1986), a senior Venezuelan government official from the Punto Fijo Pact era, who served as Justice Minister and ambassador to the US;
Reynaldo Galindo Pohl (1986–1995), a representative of El Salvador’s successive military dictatorships—repressive, corrupt, and US-backed—known as the United States’ “Ministry of Colonies” within international organizations such as the OAS;
Maurice Copithorne (1995–2002), a Canadian diplomat with a thirty-year career in foreign service;
Ahmed Shaheed (2011–2016), former Maldives minister and senior official aligned with imperial liberalism, founder of an “Open Society Association” dedicated to “human rights, tolerance, and democracy,” and recognized by Amnesty International and British Foreign Office events;
Asma Jahangir (2016–2018), a Pakistani activist, vice president of the International Federation for Human Rights, an organization financed by European governments and George Soros. Despite goodwill, leadership within groups funded by imperialist and banking powers—historically among the worst human rights violators—undermines any claim to genuine defense of rights;
Javaid Rehman (2018–2024), a British-Pakistani academic who secured substantial funding from the European Commission and served as its adviser, unlikely to criticize European policy on Iran, a key destabilization target; he also advises UK parliamentarians;
Mai Sato (2024– ), an academic leading the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR) at Birkbeck, University of London, which receives UK government funds. She co-founded the Japanese NGO CrimeInfo, originating from an EU-funded project in 2017. Like Rehman, her institution’s funding depends on alignment with British and European policies, especially regarding Iran.
Sanctions Against Iran Rationalized
In her 17-page report, Mai Sato devotes just three paragraphs to Iran’s international sanctions but largely ignores their severe toll on ordinary Iranians’ lives and rights.
Following the 1979 Revolution, the US immediately froze billions in Iranian assets, banned American trade and investment, targeted foreign companies dealing with Iran, and isolated the country economically. Europe and other Western nations obediently echoed these sanctions, and the UN imposed its own measures starting in 2006.
After decades of economic strangulation, Iran’s GDP per capita shrank roughly 37% between 2012 and 2024, per World Bank data. Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and subsequent European re-sanctions caused Iranian oil exports to plunge by around 80%, later partially recovering but still below early 2010s levels. The UN Security Council reinstated suspended sanctions in 2025, and Sato’s report defends those steps, blaming Iran for unmet commitments and echoing Trump’s rhetoric.
Sanctions depreciated Iran’s currency sharply, increasing import costs, fueling inflation, and deterring investment. Estimates suggest the middle class contracted dramatically over the last 15 years, with medicine prices soaring as much as 300%.
Her report concedes: “The rapporteur acknowledges that sanctions have exacerbated Iran’s economic difficulties, but the available evidence indicates that current economic hardships reflect multiple interconnected factors, including decades of domestic decisions in social, economic, and environmental policies.”
Sato adds: “not all of Iran’s humanitarian and human rights challenges can be attributed to sanctions.” However, this logic does not extend to “repression,” which she attributes entirely to Iranian authorities. Despite a nearly 50-year-long economic blockade imposed by the world’s dominant power, blame is placed solely on the post-1979 revolutionary state—not once was similar condemnation heard regarding the brutal suppression under Reza Pahlavi’s US-backed regime.
She concludes: “Systematic repression of dissent, restrictions on civil and political freedoms, discrimination against minorities, women and girls, economic mismanagement and corruption, and decades of environmental degradation… reflect domestic policy choices for which the Iranian authorities are responsible.” This statement blatantly acts beyond the rapporteur’s mandate, attacking the political and economic system chosen in 1979, signaling clear interference and an arbitrary push for regime change via the United Nations.
Ultimately, Sato’s report defends the long-standing assault on Iran’s populace driven by the US and its allies, often masked by UN rhetoric. It conceals genuine abuses and sustains pressure on Iran to conform to the very forces that once upheld the Shah’s dictatorship and now threaten the country militarily.
Or, as former rapporteur Maurice Copithorne stated, this effort represents a “psychological warfare” tactic aimed at undermining Iranian resilience.
About the Author
