REPORT: Tehran Links Ehsanian's Death to Two Other Mysterious Deaths

Introduction: A Statement That Suddenly Widens the Case

On May 4, Baghaei changes the scale of the affair

On May 4, 2026, the spokesman for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Esmaeil Baghaei, spoke publicly about the death of Dr. Ali Ehsanian, an Iranian artificial intelligence researcher who died in Nice on March 28. He called the case a "very bitter event" — a measured diplomatic phrase that masks a far more consequential statement: Baghaei explicitly linked this death to two other deaths of Iranian nationals in France, raising fears of "racism and terrorist acts."

In one sentence, the case stops being an isolated individual matter and becomes, in the official Iranian narrative, the presumed symptom of a broader phenomenon. It is this statement, more than the initial accusation leveled by Press TV against the Mossad, that deserves the closest scrutiny, because it directly implicates state diplomacy, not merely a regime-affiliated media outlet.

What this report seeks to establish

This piece focuses on Baghaei's remarks themselves: their exact content, their context, and what they reveal — or fail to reveal — about the reality of the two other cases mentioned. The aim is not to settle the underlying question, but to precisely document a diplomatic statement that has been widely repeated without being sufficiently scrutinized for its actual factual content.

No additional information has been made public by Iranian diplomacy regarding the identity, circumstances, or dates of the two other deaths mentioned by Baghaei. It is this absence of detail, at the very core of an official statement, that structures this entire report.

A diplomatic statement that mentions two deaths without naming them is not cautious diplomacy — it is calculated communication. It produces a cumulative effect without ever exposing itself to verification. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that deserves to be dissected sentence by sentence rather than accepted as a simple reported fact.

Who Is Esmaeil Baghaei, the Voice Behind This Accusation

The official spokesman of a diplomacy under strain

Esmaeil Baghaei holds the position of spokesman for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a role that regularly puts him in front of the most sensitive files in Iranian foreign policy, notably nuclear program negotiations and tensions with Western powers. His role is not that of a simple information relay: every statement he makes is calibrated to represent the official position of the Iranian state, with all the diplomatic consequences that entails.

The choice to address the Ehsanian affair through Baghaei's voice, rather than leaving it entirely to outlets like Press TV, marks a qualitative escalation in how Tehran is handling this file. A statement from an official spokesman commits the state in a way an article from an affiliated network never formally does. It is a signal that the regime wants to place this affair within the register of French-Iranian bilateral relations, no longer just domestic media coverage.

The broader diplomatic context surrounding the statement

This statement comes amid persistent tensions between Iran and Western powers, marked by direct military conflict with Israel referred to as "Rising Lion" and by nuclear negotiations largely at a standstill. In this configuration, every Iranian diplomatic statement serves several purposes at once: informing, but also mobilizing domestic opinion and pointing to external adversaries, real or presumed.

It would be naive to analyze this statement outside its broader geopolitical context, just as it would be excessive to reduce every word from Baghaei to purely cynical calculation. The two dimensions — diplomatic and sincere — likely coexist, without it being possible to determine which one dominates in this specific case.

A diplomatic spokesman never speaks entirely in his own name. Every word he chooses — or avoids — is the product of institutional calculation. It is this calculated dimension that makes this statement so interesting to dissect, independent of its factual accuracy.

The Two Mysterious Deaths, a Vagueness That Raises Questions

No name, no date, no verifiable detail

This is perhaps the most striking element of this statement: Baghaei mentions "two other deaths of Iranian nationals in France" without providing their names, the precise dates of these events, or the circumstances surrounding them. This total absence of verifiable details makes any independent confirmation or refutation of this claim impossible for journalists or researchers outside the Iranian diplomatic apparatus.

An accusation that cannot be verified is neither proven nor disproven — it simply remains suspended, available to be repeated and amplified without ever being tested against the facts. This is a rhetorically comfortable situation for whoever states it, and a particularly frustrating one for anyone seeking to assess its validity.

Why the lack of precision is itself information

In investigative journalism, the absence of verifiable details in a serious accusation is itself an important methodological signal. A serious official statement, backed by solid facts, would gain credibility by providing specific elements, even partial ones — initials, approximate dates, locations. The choice to remain vague, even though Baghaei's diplomatic role would give him access to the consular information needed to be more precise, deserves to be noted as a choice, not a mere omission.

This vagueness could be explained by several legitimate reasons — protecting the privacy of the families involved, the sensitivity of ongoing investigations — but it could just as easily be explained by the absence of files solid enough to be detailed publicly. Without further information, both hypotheses remain equally plausible.

An accusation without a name or a date isn't necessarily false, but it certainly isn't verifiable. And in my line of work, a claim that cannot be verified must be treated with the same caution whether it comes from a government spokesman or an anonymous social media account.

The Chosen Vocabulary: "Racism" and "Terrorist Acts"

A decisive semantic escalation

The choice of words used by Baghaei deserves particular attention. By raising fears of "racism" and "terrorist acts," the spokesman is not merely suggesting negligence or administrative slowness on the part of French authorities — he is raising the possibility that Iranian nationals are being deliberately targeted in France because of their origin or nationality, in a framework that would amount to terrorism. This is an accusation of an entirely different gravity than a simple diplomatic criticism.

Using this vocabulary without providing precise factual elements is a high-risk rhetorical choice: it plants in the minds of the Iranian public, and potentially the international public, the idea of a systemic threat specifically targeting Iranian nationals on French soil, without that threat being demonstrated by independently verified and documented facts.

What this vocabulary does not prove

Resorting to such loaded terms is in no way proof of their accuracy. The words used by a diplomatic spokesman reflect a communicative intent, not necessarily an established factual reality. The history of international relations is rich with examples where alarmist vocabulary was used for political motives, without the underlying facts actually justifying the intensity of the language used.

This does not mean the fears expressed by Baghaei are necessarily unfounded — simply that they remain, at this stage, claims not publicly backed by independent evidence, which should be treated with the methodological caution this type of statement always demands.

The words "terrorism" and "racism" should never be used lightly, precisely because they are so powerful. Hearing them invoked without proof, by any government, should always trigger the same reaction: show me the facts before I repeat your words.

The Reaction — or Lack Thereof — from French Authorities

No official public response identified

As of the available reports, no official response from the French government or its Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Baghaei's statement has been made public in the sources consulted for this report. This absence of public reaction can be interpreted in several ways: a desire not to amplify an accusation deemed baseless, strictly discreet handling of the file through bilateral diplomatic channels, or simply a choice to avoid public controversy on a sensitive subject amid regional tensions.

The absence of a French reaction should not be read as implicit acquiescence to the Iranian accusations, just as it should not be read as their categorical rejection. It illustrates, once again, the communication asymmetry between a cautious Western diplomacy and an Iranian diplomacy that does not hesitate to make public accusations without waiting for complete factual validation.

The diplomatic weight of prolonged silence

This silence, if it continues without clarification, risks letting the Iranian narrative settle by default in certain segments of international opinion, for lack of official counter-argument. Diplomatic silences, however procedurally justified, always carry a narrative cost, particularly in a media environment where publicly uncontested accusations tend to be perceived, wrongly, as credible by default.

This observation does not necessarily argue for an immediate, media-facing French response to every Iranian diplomatic statement — such a strategy would carry its own escalation risks — but it underlines the structural difficulty Western democracies face in effectively countering narratives that need no proof to spread.

French diplomatic silence may be the wisest procedural decision, but I can't help thinking it leaves the field open to a narrative that, left uncontested, ends up resembling a truth one simply chose not to deny.

The Precedent of Iranian Accusations Against France

A history of recurring bilateral tensions

Relations between Paris and Tehran have gone through, over the years preceding this affair, several episodes of tension linked to the detention of Western nationals in Iran and reciprocal accusations of unfair treatment of citizens abroad. This pre-existing climate of bilateral distrust is an essential contextual factor for understanding why a statement like Baghaei's finds particular resonance, independent of its own factual solidity.

Placing this statement within this history of repeated diplomatic friction helps clarify its function: it is not merely an isolated reaction to a researcher's death, but fits into a broader bilateral dynamic where each side seeks to document, whether genuinely or rhetorically, grievances against the other.

What this means for analyzing the statement

This bilateral dynamic does not automatically invalidate the fears expressed by Baghaei, but it invites analyzing them with the caution required for any discourse produced within a context of entrenched diplomatic rivalry. A sincere statement and a strategic statement are not mutually exclusive — they can perfectly coexist within the same words, which makes the exercise of interpretation all the more delicate for the outside observer.

It is precisely this complexity, resisting any simplistic reading, that this report has sought to document, without giving in to the temptation of artificially settling a question that remains, to this day, largely open.

I distrust equally those readings that reduce everything to cynical calculation and those that accept everything at face value. The truth, in this kind of affair, likely hides in the uncomfortable space between the two — and it is precisely that space that serious journalism must strive to inhabit.

What This Affair Reveals About the Diplomacy of Victimhood

A strategy observed in several authoritarian regimes

The technique of grouping several distinct cases under a common banner of national victimhood is not unique to Iran. Regimes such as Vladimir Putin's Russia have used similar strategies to justify aggressive postures, presenting isolated or poorly documented incidents as proof of systemic Western hostility toward their nationals or national interests. This methodological convergence between authoritarian regimes deserves to be named, because it helps decode rhetorical patterns that could otherwise be taken at face value by audiences less familiar with these techniques.

This diplomacy of victimhood offers a clear strategic advantage for the regimes that practice it: it mobilizes domestic opinion around a sense of external threat, while diverting attention from internal difficulties, whether economic, social, or political.

The Western vigilance these narratives require

Facing this type of statement, Western vigilance should not translate into automatic, systematic rejection — some grievances can be valid, even when voiced by unreliable regimes. It should instead translate into a methodical demand for verifiable proof before any public validation. It is this standard, applied consistently, that distinguishes rigorous journalism from a mere echo chamber for unverified diplomatic narratives, whether they come from Tehran, Moscow, or any other regime with an interest in manipulating international perception of its own nationals.

It is in this spirit that this report has documented Baghaei's statement: neither as an established truth, nor as an automatic lie, but as a diplomatic claim still awaiting, to this day, the proof that would make it credible.

The diplomacy of victimhood works because it is emotionally effective, not because it is factually solid. Recognizing this rhetorical effectiveness does not stop me from continuing to demand, again and again, the proof so sorely missing from this file.

What Disinformation Experts Take From This Kind of Statement

Grouping distinct incidents as a documented technique

Researchers studying state disinformation have documented, across many different contexts, a rhetorical technique of grouping several distinct and not necessarily related incidents under a single narrative banner, in order to create a cumulative impression of severity greater than any single incident could produce on its own. This technique requires no explicit lie: it simply works through juxtaposition, letting the public infer a causal or systemic link that has never actually been demonstrated by evidence.

Baghaei's statement matches, in its very structure, this documented technique: three distinct deaths, with potentially very different circumstances and dates, are presented in a single sentence as part of the same threat targeting Iranian nationals in France. Recognizing this rhetorical structure does not mean denying the possibility of a real link — it simply means refusing to presume one without proof.

Why this methodological recognition matters for the reader

Understanding this technique allows the Western reader to better assess the real weight of a diplomatic statement of this kind, without falling into the cynicism of systematically rejecting any claim coming from an unreliable regime. The goal is not to discredit as a matter of principle, but to demand the same analytical rigor that would be applied to any other source, democratic or not.

It is this rigor, precisely, that distinguishes serious journalistic treatment from simply retransmitting a diplomatic press release — a distinction this report has sought to maintain from the first word to the last.

Recognizing a rhetorical technique is not an act of contempt toward whoever uses it — it is an act of respect toward the reader, who deserves the tools needed to judge for themselves rather than swallow a pre-chewed narrative.

Conclusion: A Statement Awaiting Proof, Like the Rest of the File

What this report established, and what it could not

This report established with certainty that Iranian spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei did indeed make, on May 4, 2026, a statement describing the Ehsanian affair as a "very bitter event" and explicitly linked it to two other deaths of Iranian nationals in France, raising fears of racism and terrorist acts. This report was not, however, able to establish the identity of these two other people, the exact circumstances of their deaths, or the validity of the fears expressed by the spokesman.

This limitation is not a failure of the report — it is an exact reflection of the current state of publicly available information. Until Iranian diplomacy provides additional verifiable elements, this statement will remain what it is today: a serious claim, lacking public proof, that deserves to be reported accurately but never accepted without the verification it necessarily calls for.

The standard that must keep applying

This file, like the other episodes of this affair, illustrates a simple rule that should guide any serious observer of international news: a diplomatic statement, however official and solemn, only becomes an established fact after independent verification. Faithfully reporting a statement never equals validating it, and it is this distinction, too often neglected in contemporary media coverage, that this report has sought to respect scrupulously from beginning to end.

The case remains open. The two other deaths mentioned by Baghaei remain, too, nameless and unproven. It is this uncomfortable but honest state of uncertainty that must be preserved until proven otherwise.

I close this report with more questions than answers, which is sometimes the sign of honest work rather than incomplete work. The two other deaths mentioned by Baghaei deserve, too, to one day be documented with names and facts — not merely invoked as diplomatic arguments.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Editorial positioning

This report holds a clear editorial line: support for Ukraine and the West, methodical vigilance toward diplomatic narratives produced by authoritarian regimes, including those of Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. This vigilance applies rigorously and symmetrically, without automatically presuming a statement to be false simply because of its origin.

Methodology and sources

The facts reported here come from information relayed by IsraelValley and corroborated by other international sources concerning Esmaeil Baghaei's statement of May 4, 2026. No detail, name, or date has been invented. The major factual limits of this file — no identification of the two other deaths mentioned, no identified official French response — are explicitly flagged.

Nature of this analysis

This text is a report documenting a public diplomatic statement and its context, not field investigation conducted directly by the columnist. No direct consular or diplomatic source was consulted in writing this text. The italicized editorial passages are explicitly identified as personal opinions.

Sources

Primary sources

Un coup d'Israël ? La mort énigmatique en France du Dr Ali Ehsanian — IsraelValley, June 21, 2026

Esmail Baghaei, spokesman for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs — Wikipedia

Mystery surrounds death of Iranian AI pioneer in France, with fingers pointing at Mossad — Press TV, June 15, 2026

Secondary sources

Iranian AI pioneer killed, Tehran blames Mossad — Israel Hayom, June 20, 2026

Mystery surrounds the death in France of Iran's 'AI pioneer' amid claims the Mossad eliminated him — Ynet News, June 20, 2026

Geopolitical context of Iran-West tensions — Foreign Policy