ANALYSIS: The Ehsanian Affair, Tehran's Fabricated Case Against the Mossad

A death in Nice, six weeks of silence

On March 28, 2026, Dr. Ali Ehsanian, described by Iranian media as a pioneer of artificial intelligence, died in Nice, on the French Riviera. His body was not repatriated to Iran until June 11, nearly six weeks later, before being buried in his hometown of Jahrom, in Fars province. Between those two dates lies an almost total information vacuum. It is precisely into that vacuum that Iranian state broadcaster Press TV chose to step, naming the Israeli Mossad as responsible for the death, without offering a shred of evidence.

What looks, on the surface, like a contained judicial matter has become a textbook case of geopolitical narrative manufacturing. It deserves methodical unpacking, because it illustrates a technique well known among authoritarian regimes: fill a factual gap with a politically useful accusation, then let that accusation travel faster than the facts themselves.

Why this story matters beyond the individual case

This is not the first time Tehran has pinned a scientist's death on the Mossad. The Iranian regime has spent years building a narrative of a systematic assassination campaign targeting its researchers, leaning on real precedents — including several assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists documented by the international press over the past decade. The problem is not that such events never happened; it is that every suspicious death, whether or not any link is demonstrated, is now automatically folded into that narrative, proof or no proof.

This analysis examines the established facts, the unverified claims made by Press TV, and the geopolitical context that explains why Tehran has a structural interest in preserving ambiguity rather than dispelling it. It is not a coincidence that the story resurfaces weeks after the fact — the timing of a narrative often reveals more than the narrative itself.

There is something deeply cynical about the way a regime can turn a family's grief into an instrument of state propaganda. One can feel compassion for a man's death while categorically rejecting the manipulation built around it. The two are not contradictory — they are, in fact, inseparable if this case is to be treated seriously.

A grave accusation, zero factual footing

Press TV, a broadcaster close to the Tehran regime, published a lengthy article claiming that "all the elements point to the Mossad," without producing a single piece of physical evidence, a single named witness, or any documentary trace linking Israeli intelligence to the researcher's death. The article simply slots the death into a presumed long-running campaign to "decapitate Iranian scientific progress," a phrase that belongs to political interpretation, not factual finding.

Ehsanian's professional profile — a doctorate in electrical engineering from the Sorbonne, a fellow of the European Marie Skłodowska-Curie program, and a former collaborator with Iran's Ministry of Defense between 2018 and 2020 — is presented by Press TV as implicit proof that he was a target for Israel. That is reasoning by association: a profile compatible with a theory is never proof of that theory. A résumé is not a documented motive.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence — but it is not proof of guilt either

An essential nuance is needed here: the fact that French authorities have not publicly confirmed a theory of foreign assassination does not prove one did not occur. But the reverse is equally true, and it is precisely what Press TV carefully glosses over: the absence of public proof does not confirm the Mossad theory in any way. The Iranian outlet built a narrative that feeds on silence rather than questioning it rigorously.

It is a classic rhetorical strategy in state disinformation: turning an informational gray zone into an asserted certainty, through repetition and definitive phrases like "all the elements point toward." No serious outlet outside the Iranian state media ecosystem has repeated this conclusion as an established fact.

What strikes me most in this affair is not the accusation itself — authoritarian regimes blame Israel for everything, all the time; it has become almost a reflex. It is the speed with which some Western outlets, sometimes out of sheer editorial laziness, repeat these narratives without asking journalism's most basic question: where is the proof?

A real history of targeted operations

It would be dishonest to claim that Press TV's accusation comes from nowhere. The Mossad has indeed been implicated, according to numerous independent Western investigative reports over the years, in targeted operations against scientists tied to Iran's nuclear program — names of several nuclear physicists assassinated in Iran between 2010 and 2020 are documented by a press that has nothing to do with Iranian state propaganda. That history is a fact, not a Tehran invention.

It is precisely because that track record exists that the Iranian thesis finds fertile ground. The problem is not the implausibility of the hypothesis; it is the total absence of proof in this specific case. A real track record does not automatically turn every suspicious death into a new episode of the same series. That is exactly the shortcut Press TV exploits.

An AI researcher is not a nuclear physicist

Another important nuance: Ehsanian worked on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and next-generation wireless networks — technologies with potential dual civilian and military use, but which do not sit at the same strategic level as militarized nuclear physics. Equating his profile with that of the nuclear scientists assassinated in the previous decade is a convenient intellectual shortcut, not a rigorous analysis of Israeli intelligence's actual priorities.

This distinction is not a technical footnote: it fundamentally changes the plausibility of the motive Tehran puts forward. Sound reasoning requires that the motive be proportionate to the act attributed to it. Here, that is not the case — or at least nothing public demonstrates it.

I don't claim to know the internal priorities of Israeli intelligence services — no outsider truly does. But I know how to recognize an argument built on analogy rather than evidence, and Press TV's case is a textbook example of exactly that.

"Rising Lion" and the psychosis of infiltration

Ehsanian's death occurred during a period of direct military tension between Israel and Iran, in a context Iranian media themselves labeled the "Rising Lion" operation. This climate of open confrontation profoundly changes how even seemingly minor events are interpreted by populations and by the propaganda machines on both sides. In an atmosphere of direct confrontation, any suspicious death of a national becomes an available symbol for domestic mobilization.

It is a well-known wartime mechanism: regimes, democratic or authoritarian, have a political interest in pointing to an external enemy responsible for every misfortune, including those that probably have nothing to do with it. War is an accelerant for simplified narratives. Tehran is no exception to this universal rule — it simply applies it with particular intensity since hostilities began.

An Iranian public already mobilized by fear

In this context, presenting the death of an Iranian scientist abroad as a new Israeli assassination serves a precise domestic function: reinforcing the sense of permanent siege around which the regime builds its legitimacy. Every victim, real or presumed, of a foreign operation becomes an argument to justify domestic repression and national mobilization. This is not a scheduling coincidence — it is the instrumental use of grief.

None of this diminishes the genuine sadness of a death, whatever its cause. But it explains why Tehran has a structural interest that outweighs its interest in the truth: sustaining ambiguity serves the regime more than clarity ever would.

We often forget that the most effective disinformation isn't the kind that invents a complete lie, but the kind that exploits a real gap to inject a predetermined conclusion. Tehran didn't need to invent Ehsanian's death — it is entirely real. It simply had to dress it in the right political costume.

What Press TV's own report admits

One element deserves particular attention, because it comes from the Iranian source itself: according to its own report, French police have issued no statement naming Dr. Ehsanian nor formally confirmed the opening of a homicide investigation, and the prosecutor's office had announced neither an indictment nor the identification of suspects at the time the article was published. Press TV presents this silence as suspicious, even complicit.

Yet discretion by French judicial authorities during an ongoing investigation is standard practice, regardless of the victim's nationality or the geopolitical sensitivity of the case. French law strictly regulates public communication about ongoing investigations, precisely to avoid compromising their progress. Interpreting this procedural reserve as proof of a cover-up is an extrapolation, not a deduction.

A consistent French practice, not an exception tied to this case

It is enough to compare this with other criminal cases involving foreign nationals in France to see that this institutional reserve is nothing exceptional. French authorities rarely communicate ahead of a formal indictment, regardless of a victim's profile. French institutional silence is a structural feature of the judicial system, not a political signal aimed at Iran.

This distinction is crucial to assessing the solidity of Press TV's narrative: the network turns a standard procedure into evidence of conspiracy, while unwittingly documenting, in its own reporting, the ordinary functioning of French justice.

I find it almost ironic that the best rebuttal of Press TV's narrative sits inside its own article. When the source accusing you documents, on its own, the absence of proof, there isn't much left to demonstrate — except, perhaps, the mechanics of its own propaganda.

Baghaei and "a very bitter event"

On May 4, 2026, the spokesman for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Esmaeil Baghaei, spoke publicly about the case, calling it a "very bitter event." More significantly: he linked Ehsanian's case to two other deaths of Iranian nationals in France, raising fears of "racism and terrorist acts," without offering further detail on either case.

This official statement marks a turning point: it is no longer merely a propaganda channel speaking, but Iranian diplomacy itself implicitly validating, without additional proof, a political reading of three distinct deaths. Grouping three unrelated cases under one interpretive banner is a rhetorical technique, not a causal demonstration.

The shift from the judicial to the diplomatic

By linking these three cases, Baghaei moves the debate away from factual terrain — who killed whom, and why — toward diplomatic and symbolic terrain: whether France is hostile ground for Iranian nationals. It is a classic strategic shift: when facts are lacking to support a specific accusation, the frame is widened to create a cumulative impression of persecution, one that is harder to rebut point by point.

This maneuver proves nothing further about Ehsanian's death itself. It does, however, say a great deal about how Tehran seeks to build a narrative of systemic victimization capable of mobilizing Iranian public opinion and justifying heightened distrust toward the West — consistent with the regime's broader geopolitical line.

A spokesman who links three unresolved cases in a single sentence is not practicing diplomacy — he is doing crisis communication. And the difference between the two is precisely the rigor one is willing to sacrifice for the message's effectiveness.

A reproducible playbook

The Ehsanian affair is not an isolated case in how authoritarian regimes exploit factual uncertainty. The pattern is repetitive and documented by numerous disinformation researchers: an ambiguous event occurs; a state media outlet advances an explanation that serves the regime's geopolitical interests; the explanation circulates on social media and affiliated channels before the facts are established; and when the absence of proof is pointed out, it is reinterpreted as further evidence of a cover-up. It is a closed system, designed to resist its own refutation.

This mechanic is not unique to Iran. Vladimir Putin's Russia uses structurally similar techniques to justify its invasion of Ukraine, inventing fictitious threats or amplifying minor incidents to build a narrative of self-defense. What these regimes share is not just hostility to the West — it is a shared contempt for factual verification as a precondition for public accusation.

Why the West must resist simplification in both directions

Treating this case seriously means refusing two opposite temptations: accepting the Iranian narrative of a Mossad assassination without proof, but also refusing, on principle, any possibility that a foreign intelligence service could have been involved simply because the accusation comes from an unreliable regime. Intellectual rigor does not mean mechanically inverting propaganda — it means demanding evidence, wherever it comes from.

That is precisely the standard Press TV fails to meet at any point in its narrative. And it is that same standard that must guide any serious Western observer confronting a case where the verified facts remain, to this day, thin.

What stays with me from this affair, at bottom, is not the question of whether the Mossad killed this researcher — I have no basis to affirm or rule that out with certainty. What stays with me is how easily a regime can convert uncertainty into public certainty, simply by repeating it loudly and long enough.

Putin and the manufacturing of external enemies

To fully understand the mechanism at work in the Ehsanian affair, it helps to look at a more documented precedent: that of Vladimir Putin's Russia, which justified its 2022 invasion of Ukraine with a series of unproven accusations against Kyiv and NATO, going as far as fabricating claims of mass atrocities against Russian-speaking populations in the Donbas. This precedent is not a gratuitous comparison: it is a widely documented textbook case among Western disinformation researchers, showing how a state can build a complete architecture of justification out of unverifiable claims.

The Iranian regime, facing its own internal vulnerabilities and military pressure from Israel, applies a more modest but structurally identical variant of this method. What they share is not the scale of the operation, but the architecture of the reasoning: accusing a predetermined adversary, regardless of available evidence, to strengthen internal cohesion and divert attention from domestic difficulties.

A lesson that applies to every regime playing this game

This methodological kinship between Moscow and Tehran is not incidental in today's geopolitical context: the two regimes are currently allies of convenience, sharing a common interest in weakening the credibility of Western democracies and eroding public trust in independent judicial institutions. Every time an authoritarian regime spreads an unproven accusation against the West or its allies, it indirectly reinforces the same strategy used by its geopolitical partners.

That is why serious Western observers cannot treat the Ehsanian affair as an isolated, anecdotal case. It fits into a broader ecosystem of information warfare, in which Russia, Iran, and to a lesser extent China and North Korea, apply variants of the same rhetorical scheme aimed at domestic audiences seeking simple certainties in a complex world.

What unites Moscow and Tehran is not a shared ideology — their political systems differ profoundly. It is a shared method: replacing proof with repetition, and investigation with a predetermined conclusion. Against that method, the only defense remains the same, always: demand evidence, and refuse to settle for its absence.

What we know, what we do not know

What we know with certainty: an Iranian researcher died in Nice on March 28, 2026; his body was repatriated six weeks later; French authorities, as of the available Iranian reports, had neither publicly confirmed a homicide investigation nor identified a suspect; Iranian diplomacy publicly linked this case to two other deaths without further proof. What we equally do not know: the exact cause of death, whether any foreign involvement exists, and the real substance of the two other cases mentioned by Baghaei.

Between those two columns — the known and the unknown — Press TV chose to fill the gap with an unproven accusation against Israel. That is a revealing editorial choice, not a journalistic conclusion. Until French justice communicates verifiable elements, any categorical claim about the causes of this death remains political speculation, regardless of the source making it.

The lesson for the Western observer

This case is a reminder of a simple rule too often forgotten in international news coverage: the absence of an official denial never equals confirmation, and the most repeated accusation is not necessarily the best-founded one. Facing regimes with a structural interest in disinformation, the only reliable compass remains the methodical demand for verifiable proof, regardless of the political direction the narrative takes.

It will fall, if it exists, to the French judicial investigation — and to it alone — to one day settle this case based on facts, not diplomatic statements or reports from a state broadcaster engaged in a broader communications war.

I'm sometimes asked whether I think the Mossad is capable of such an act. The question is not what an intelligence service is capable of in theory — almost all of them are. The real question, the one Tehran refuses to ask, is: where is the concrete evidence for this specific case? Until it exists, the only intellectually honest position is acknowledged doubt, not certainty borrowed from a propaganda channel.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.