Air strikes cause black rain and 'unprecedented' pollution in Tehran, scientists say
Analysis Summary
This article tries to convince you that 'US-Israeli attacks' on oil facilities in Tehran are causing a terrible environmental and health crisis. It mainly does this by quoting authority figures and creating a sense of urgency about the situation, but it leaves out why these facilities might be targeted and the bigger picture of the conflict.
Cross-Outlet PSYOP Detected
This article is part of a narrative being pushed across multiple outlets:
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"experts warn the scale of some of the pollutants released could be "unprecedented"."
The use of 'unprecedented' frames the event as extraordinary and never before seen, capturing attention.
""What has happened [in Iran] is definitely unprecedented because it's all coming in from missiles dropping in and airstrikes on oil refineries," said Dr Akshay Deoras, research scientist at the University of Reading."
Reinforces the idea of an 'unprecedented' event, suggesting a unique and significant situation.
"Ms Marais said that in most circumstances this kind of pollution would only be seen from "a very, very severe industrial accident where an entire refinery explodes"."
Compares the event to an extreme, usually rare accident, highlighting its unusual and therefore attention-grabbing nature.
"Doug Weir, director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory, noted that "what's unusual about Tehran is we haven't observed these attacks in such a densely populated area before"."
Emphasizes the uniqueness of the situation due to the urban setting, making it stand out as a novel and concerning development.
Authority signals
"as the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that attacks on oil facilities could pose serious health risks to residents."
Leverages the global authority of the WHO to bolster the severity and credibility of the health risks.
"experts warn the scale of some of the pollutants released could be "unprecedented"."
Appeals to unspecified 'experts' to lend weight to the claim of unprecedented pollution levels.
"The latest satellite pictures, captured on 9 March and reviewed by BBC Verify, show two major oil facilities in Tehran still on fire..."
BBC Verify is presented as an authoritative, fact-checking entity, enhancing the credibility of the satellite imagery analysis.
"Dr Akshay Deoras, research scientist at the University of Reading."
Uses credentials and institutional affiliation to establish the speaker's expertise on the environmental impact.
"Eloise Marais, professor of atmospheric chemistry and air quality at University College London, agreed."
Utilizes academic title and institutional affiliation to validate the environmental claims.
"The head of the WHO has already expressed "great concerns" for the impacts of the conflict on people's health."
Reiterates the WHO's concern, further solidifying the sense of official and internationally recognized danger.
"Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus."
Citing the head of the WHO by name adds a personal layer of high-level authority to the health warnings.
"Anna Hansell, professor of environmental epidemiology at the University of Leicester."
Leverages academic title and institutional affiliation to support claims about long-term health effects.
"Doug Weir, director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory,"
Uses the director title and organizational affiliation to add authoritative insight on the geopolitical context of the attacks.
Tribe signals
"Since the US-Israeli attacks on Iran began on 28 February, we have confirmed strikes on at least four oil facilities around the capital."
Immediately frames the situation as 'US-Israeli' actions against 'Iran', establishing an us-vs-them dynamic at the state level. While factual, it sets up a clear perpetrator-victim narrative.
"The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it hit "fuel depots" near Tehran in a post on X on 7 March, which included a photograph showing damage to the Tehran oil refinery. BBC Verify provided the coordinates of this facility, along with three other locations we identified, to the IDF and the Pentagon for comment. The Pentagon did not reply, while the IDF said there were "no IDF strikes at those sites"."
Highlights a discrepancy in statements between the IDF and BBC Verify's findings, potentially creating a narrative of one side (IDF/Pentagon) being evasive or untruthful versus another (BBC Verify) uncovering facts. This can foster tribal alignment with the 'truth-seekers' against the 'deniers'.
Emotion signals
"as the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that attacks on oil facilities could pose serious health risks to residents."
Directly engineers fear by highlighting 'serious health risks' associated with the attacks, creating concern for the well-being of residents.
"Residents said smog and pollution have blocked out the Sun and left a strong smell of burning in parts of the city"
Evokes a sense of immediate distress and fear by describing a tangible, oppressive environmental threat ('blocked out the Sun', 'strong smell of burning') impacting daily life.
"When there is incomplete burning of oil – when there is not enough oxygen - carbon monoxide and soot particles can be released instead of carbon dioxide and water. Oil fires can also release sulphur and nitrogen oxides, which can form acids if they dissolve in rainwater, as well as other harmful hydrocarbons, metallic compounds and droplets of oil."
Lists a litany of harmful and complex chemical compounds, intentionally using scientific jargon to amplify the perceived danger and complexity of the environmental hazard, contributing to fear.
""I can't see the Sun. There is a horrible smoke. It's still there. I'm very tired," she told BBC Persian on Saturday."
A direct quote from a resident vividly conveys the distressing sensory experience of the pollution, fostering empathy and fear for the affected population.
"But given the mix of chemicals likely released from the damaged oil sites, scientists have little doubt that the pollution is harmful and extreme"
Reinforces fear by stating definitively that the pollution is 'harmful and extreme,' leaving no room for doubt about the severity of the situation.
"Damage to oil facilities "risks contaminating food, water and air – hazards that can have severe health impacts especially on children, older people, and people with pre existing medical conditions", said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus."
Manufacturing outrage by highlighting the impact on vulnerable populations ('children, older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions'), making the consequences more emotionally resonant and unjust.
""But they can also have quite long lasting effects over many years afterwards, on both respiratory systems and increasing cancer risk.""
Engenders long-term fear and anxiety by emphasizing 'long lasting effects' and 'increasing cancer risk', extending the emotional impact beyond the immediate event.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that the stated 'US-Israeli attacks' on oil facilities in Tehran are causing severe environmental and health crises for the civilian population, implying a significant negative impact of these actions.
The article shifts the context of military strikes from a geopolitical or strategic conflict to a public health and environmental disaster affecting civilians. By focusing heavily on the 'black rain,' 'smog,' and health risks, it frames the military actions primarily through the lens of human suffering and ecological damage, rather than the wider conflict within which the strikes occurred.
The article significantly omits the broader geopolitical context and stated objectives of the 'US-Israeli attacks' against Iran, if any. It does not provide information on whether these facilities are also used for military purposes, or the strategic goals behind targeting them, which would offer an alternative lens for understanding the strikes beyond their immediate environmental impact. It also does not clarify the specific nature of 'US-Israeli attacks,' leaving the reader to infer a direct military engagement by both nations against Iran.
The article implicitly grants permission for the reader to view the 'US-Israeli attacks' against Iran as disproportionately harmful to civilians and the environment, leading to a natural inclination towards condemnation of such actions due to their humanitarian and ecological costs.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"Since the US-Israeli attacks on Iran began on 28 February, we have confirmed strikes on at least four oil facilities around the capital."
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it hit 'fuel depots' near Tehran in a post on X on 7 March, which included a photograph showing damage to the Tehran oil refinery. BBC Verify provided the coordinates of this facility, along with three other locations we identified, to the IDF and the Pentagon for comment. The Pentagon did not reply, while the IDF said there were 'no IDF strikes at those sites'. We have asked for clarification."
Techniques Found(4)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"Since the US-Israeli attacks on Iran began on 28 February, we have confirmed strikes on at least four oil facilities around the capital."
Describing military actions as 'attacks' by specific nations without further context in the initial sentence can be seen as emotionally charged. While technically accurate for who carried out the strikes, the term 'attacks' without immediate balance of military justification aims to predispose the reader to seeing the actions negatively, framing it as an unprovoked assault rather than a military operation with potential justifications.
"When there is incomplete burning of oil – when there is not enough oxygen - carbon monoxide and soot particles can be released instead of carbon dioxide and water. Oil fires can also release sulphur and nitrogen oxides, which can form acids if they dissolve in rainwater, as well as other harmful hydrocarbons, metallic compounds and droplets of oil."
While these are accurate scientific descriptions of what *can* be released, the extensive listing of multiple negative chemical byproducts without quantifying their presence or relative danger in this specific situation, and using terms like 'harmful hydrocarbons' and 'metallic compounds,' can exaggerate the immediate severity and complexity of the risk to the reader, making it seem more dire than perhaps scientifically proven in this context.
"What has happened [in Iran] is definitely unprecedented because it's all coming in from missiles dropping in and airstrikes on oil refineries"
The phrase 'missiles dropping in' is a stark and dramatic way to describe the origin of the pollution, using emotionally charged imagery that emphasizes the destructive and invasive nature of the strikes. While factual information about the strikes is provided elsewhere, this particular phrasing evokes a sense of sudden, violent impact.
"often these oil field sites are quite far out in the countryside. People in Tehran are exposed to a huge range of substances in this black rain - not just oil"
The phrase 'huge range of substances' without listing them or providing specific concentrations can exaggerate the perceived danger, making the threat seem more comprehensive and unknown than explicitly evidenced. While true that various chemicals may be present, 'huge range' amplifies the perceived risk.