Nournews: In recent days, especially after the start of negotiations in Islamabad, a political-media incident has occurred in the country, raising questions among political observers and somewhat challenging them. Some political and military activists, including those holding parliamentary positions, have attributed very important and even decisive quotes to the Supreme Leader without clarifying the source of these quotes. For instance, in the past few days, a member of parliament, in an audio file, claimed that the negotiating team was not authorized to discuss the nuclear issue during the Islamabad talks. These attributions and quotes, presented with visible certainty and without mentioning their sources, have raised questions in people’s minds.
Naturally, political activists, especially those in official positions, are allowed to present their personal analyses in the media and public communication platforms. The political climate in the country, particularly in these news-heavy times, is eager for analysis and news related to the war and ceasefire developments. In this regard, we should be grateful to all those who engage in the information-sharing and analysis cycle, responding to the public's need for clarification. However, in the midst of this media duty, sometimes statements are attributed to high-ranking officials, which, due to the ambiguity about their source and authenticity, might defeat the purpose of clarification, leading to confusion and mental disarray for the public.
In any political system, the words of the highest authority are not just ordinary remarks; they are part of the official direction, a governance signal, and in some cases, they can determine the course of strategic national decisions. For this reason, attributing any sentence, recommendation, opposition, or support to such a figure is highly sensitive, impactful, and has both domestic and international consequences. It is needless to say that the issue is not just about the truth or falsehood of a quote; the more important issue is the systematic way in which these statements and quotes are disseminated and the political and media discipline observed when sharing them. Even if these quotes are accurate and authentic, if they are published outside the formal channels of established mechanisms, without the possibility of public verification, they can have consequences far beyond the initial speaker’s intentions.
The first consequence is the ambiguity about the source of official news. Society must know where to obtain the official words of the country's leaders: from official platforms, reputable media, and responsible institutions, or from the scattered statements of various individuals, even if they hold official positions? If every political figure introduces themselves as the messenger of the highest authority, the boundary between confirmed news and personal interpretation will gradually fade. This situation creates confusion for public opinion, intellectuals, and even executive bodies.
The second consequence is the cost it generates for foreign policy and national security. In today’s world, every sentence attributed to a country’s highest authority, especially during the highly sensitive and precarious period of war, is monitored by the media, markets, regional players, and intelligence agencies. When a quote is attributed with certainty to the Supreme Leader on issues such as nuclear topics, the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, or foreign relations, it could be perceived as an official stance, triggering real reactions. In such cases, a remark or quote can have much larger effects than the political weight of the speaker.
The third issue is the weakening of accountability for official bodies and authorities. If national decisions are constantly explained through quotes by various unofficial individuals, the role of responsible institutions in delivering decisions and defining policies becomes blurred. Ministries, councils, official spokespersons, and responsible agencies must be accountable and transparent, not let policymaking be driven by “heard” or “it has been said.”
However, one must be fair. Many of those who make such quotes do so with good intentions; they may aim to defend the system, explain a decision, or eliminate ambiguity. But in politics, good intentions cannot replace good systems. Even the most altruistic behaviors, if they are outside of the established rules, can lead to communication chaos and cognitive disarray.
For this reason, it seems that the time has come for a clear and professional rule to be followed: every strategic issue attributed to the highest authority of the country should only be published through official, documented, and verifiable channels. If a responsible individual needs to express a broad view, it is better to refer to publicly expressed views, not private information, internal speculations, or personal interpretations.
This rule is not about limiting individuals or closing doors for dialogue; rather, it is about preserving the credibility of official statements. The higher the position of an official, the greater the sensitivity around attributing statements to them. Otherwise, the inflation of quotes will occur, and society will lose trust amid a flood of contradictory narratives. Iran is now in a sensitive period, possibly the most critical days in the history of the Islamic Republic. In such a time, preserving the unity of voice and the accuracy of the official narrative is an undeniable necessity. Only by doing this can we prevent mental chaos and, naturally, the erosion of trust. All political activists, especially those close to the upper levels of power, must understand that attributing a statement to the Supreme Leader, even if the attribution is correct, is the responsibility of the authorized institutions, and no one else. Adhering to such a precise division of labor is essential for safeguarding the interests of the system and ensuring the protection of national interests.
Nournews