As part of its ongoing efforts to document and analyze the legal, political, and humanitarian dimensions of recent military aggression against Iran, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) conducted an interview with Amedeo Avondet, Italian political analyst, journalist, and founder of the political movement Italia Unita.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Avondet is known for his critical analysis of Western foreign policy, information warfare, and geopolitical power structures, particularly in relation to the Middle East, NATO, and global strategic competition. Through his political and media activities, he has frequently addressed issues related to sovereignty, international intervention, sanctions regimes, and the role of media narratives in shaping public perception during armed conflicts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this interview, Avondet discusses the structural dynamics of information warfare, the limitations of international accountability mechanisms, and the geopolitical significance of the Strait of Hormuz amid escalating regional tensions. He also examines the role of civil society and independent media in documenting violations of international humanitarian law, as well as the long-term consequences of attacks on cultural and civilian infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The interview further explores broader questions concerning strategic deterrence, international law, media influence, and the challenges faced by international institutions in responding effectively to contemporary conflicts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The views expressed in this interview do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The full transcript of the interview follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. In Iran, we have seen direct attacks on civilian areas, including the Minab school, where 168 children were killed and some families are still searching for the bodies of their children. Why do such incidents not receive the attention they deserve in Western media, and how does this silence affect public opinion and government accountability?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The United States of America and Western nations collectively allocate hundreds of millions of dollars annually to psychological and information warfare operations conducted on a global scale. Through their diplomatic missions, these states systematically cultivate relationships with sympathetic media professionals in every country, effectively shaping editorial orientations across a broad spectrum of international media outlets. Coercive influence over editorial leadership is exercised through multiple vectors: financial inducements, the leveraging of compromising intelligence materials compiled by foreign security services \u2014 a practice brought to public attention by the Epstein case in relation to Israeli intelligence activities \u2014 and, in documented instances, targeted assassinations attributed to state actors, most notably the Mossad, directed against individuals considered adversarial to these interests. Information warfare, like all dimensions of contemporary conflict, necessitates the sustained allocation of substantial economic, organizational, and operational resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A further structural dimension of this phenomenon concerns the strategic role of diaspora communities and their associated financial networks. Jewish communities, despite constituting a numerically negligible proportion of the global population, exercise a demonstrably significant influence over political and economic decision-making processes in the United States and across the European Union. (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt (2007). 2.\u00a0In the recent aggression, around 3,700 people were killed and many civilian infrastructures in Iran\u2014including medical, educational, industrial, and petrochemical facilities\u2014were severely damaged, all of which were non-military targets. What concrete legal or international mechanisms exist to enforce compliance with rules protecting civilians, and how can cases of deliberate violations by attacking states be effectively pursued?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On a strictly theoretical and juridical basis, the United Nations Security Council would be obligated, under existing international law, to adopt comprehensive sanctions against the United States and the State of Israel in response to documented instances of crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. However, given the structural configuration of the Security Council \u2014 specifically, the unconditional veto power exercised by the United States \u2014 the adoption of any such binding resolution remains a practical impossibility. In light of this institutional deadlock, the Islamic Republic of Iran is advised to pursue, through diplomatic and media channels, a coordinated multilateral campaign aimed at establishing a framework of unilateral and secondary sanctions targeting the United States and Israel. This framework should incorporate concrete economic incentives \u2014 including preferential transit arrangements through the Strait of Hormuz and discounted access to Iranian petroleum \u2014 to be extended to all states formally adhering to the proposed sanctioning and boycott regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. What role can grassroots movements and civil society initiatives play in building effective cross-border cooperation to document harm to civilian infrastructure and support accountability efforts?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is of paramount importance to establish formal collaborative frameworks with independent journalists, media professionals, bloggers, and digital influencers operating across all geopolitical regions, with a view to enabling the direct, transparent, and systematic documentation of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law in active conflict zones. 4. Why do existing international institutions often fail to respond effectively to repeated large-scale attacks on civilian infrastructure across different conflict zones? Are these limitations structural, political, or both?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Several converging factors systematically impede the timely and effective attribution of responsibility for violations of international law in contemporary conflict environments. First, the accelerating pace of technological development has produced an expanding array of dual-use infrastructures \u2014 serving both civilian and military functions \u2014 rendering the determination of legal culpability increasingly complex. Second, active conflict zones are routinely characterized by simultaneous conditions of operational fog of war and pervasive informational disorder, severely constraining the capacity of independent observers to establish verified accounts of events in real time. Third, the rapid succession of multiple concurrent crises generates an informational saturation effect that undermines the capacity of international public opinion to sustain focused attention on any single incident or pattern of violations. Finally, the institutional architecture of the United Nations Security Council \u2014 wherein all five permanent members possess unconditional veto rights and each pursues discrete and often conflicting strategic agendas \u2014 renders the adoption of binding resolutions on politically sensitive matters structurally improbable, as evidenced by the Council’s recurring inability to act decisively in relation to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5.\u00a0How should the Strait of Hormuz be understood today in legal and political terms, given its role in regional tensions and global energy security? What cooperative or de-escalation frameworks could realistically help reduce risks in this area?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Iranian sovereign control over the Strait of Hormuz constitutes a structurally significant instrument of strategic counterbalance against the military superiority exercised by the United States and Israel, both of which maintain an extensive network of military installations throughout the Middle East \u2014 some authorized under bilateral agreements, others operating in violation of international law \u2014 and both of which have demonstrated, through their documented conduct, a consistent disposition toward the deliberate destabilization of sovereign states and entire regions, spanning Eastern Europe, the Pacific, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The global operational footprint of the United States and the United Kingdom \u2014 conducted through governmental and non-governmental organizations, diplomatic missions, intelligence agencies, and direct military interventions \u2014 represents a systemic and ongoing challenge to the principles of state sovereignty and non-interference enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Based on these assessments, only credible strategic deterrence\u2014 whether nuclear or economic in nature \u2014 is capable of providing durable protection to sovereign states against the aggressive foreign policy conduct of hegemonic powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6. How do repeated attacks on cultural and religious sites affect long-term regional stability and prospects for reconciliation? What deeper risks do such actions create beyond immediate destruction?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Cultural heritage constitutes the most irreplaceable and inalienable patrimony of any nation and of humanity as a whole. Every deliberate attack directed against a cultural site must be unequivocally condemned by the international community, without qualification, exception, or diplomatic mitigation. Such acts \u2014 historically associated with terrorist organizations and with actors operating in a state of institutional or educational deficiency \u2014 inflict irreversible damage not only upon the targeted state but upon the collective heritage of all peoples, as formally recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and affirmed in successive United Nations General Assembly resolutions. The monumental and artistic expressions of a people’s historical consciousness are foundational to national identity, social cohesion, and the dignity of communities. Under established principles of international humanitarian law and UN declarations, any individual or organized entity that deliberately targets a cultural site must be regarded and prosecuted as a perpetrator of an act of cultural terrorism and treated accordingly under the full force of international criminal law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As part of its ongoing efforts to document and analyze the legal, political, and humanitarian dimensions of recent military aggression against Iran, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) conducted an interview with Amedeo Avondet, Italian political analyst, journalist, and founder of the political movement Italia Unita. Avondet is known for his critical analysis […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1150,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[105,40],"tags":[99,101],"class_list":["post-1149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-interview-activities","tag-hybrid-warfare","tag-information-warfare"],"yoast_head":"\n
The model developed by the State of Israel in organizing and instrumentalizing its diaspora represents a paradigm worthy of serious analytical attention and institutional replication by any sovereign state seeking to project influence beyond its borders. A cohesive and homeland-oriented diaspora provides a range of strategically indispensable functions, including: human intelligence collection, soft-power projection, the establishment of mechanisms to circumvent international sanctions regimes, and access to non-sanctionable financial reserves held beyond the jurisdiction of adversarial powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both the United Nations system and the Islamic Republic of Iran are institutionally positioned to play a constructive and enabling role in this process, specifically through the provision of secure access corridors and the issuance of appropriate accreditation and visas to accredited media representatives. It is a well-established principle of public information theory that only sustained and verifiable media exposure of a given event is capable of generating the level of public discourse necessary to produce meaningful institutional and political responses.
In addition to media engagement, civil society boycott campaigns constitute a non-state mechanism of considerable long-term efficacy, capable of exerting direct and measurable influence on institutional behavior and on the political and economic choices of both governments and corporate actors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n