Iranian state media has sought to exploit the death of Aaron Bushnell, a 25-year-old member of the US Air Force who set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy on Sunday.
Bushnell died as a result of his actions. He claimed he did it because of the war in Gaza and created a short video that showed him walking up and dousing himself in liquid before setting himself on fire. First responders attempted to help and put out the fire but were unsuccessful in saving him.
Iran’s Press TV put out an image of Bushnell on X and has sought to exploit the tragedy, which is clear from the fact that Iranian media in Farsi does not appear to have the same level of adoration for the act – likely because burning oneself alive is not considered acceptable in Iran, but Iranian regime media in English wants to use this to create more of a crisis around the war in Gaza.
The Press TV post notes that “Aaron Bushnell, an active-duty member of the US Air Force, set himself on fire outside the embassy of the Israeli regime in protest against the campaign of death and destruction in Gaza. He died Saturday night, US officials say.” They then added a hashtag with his name in it. Press TV also created an image of the airman with a quote he said, noting he was going to engage in an “extreme act of protest.”
The social media reaction
Support for Bushnell’s actions has spread on social media by many people who are either pro-Iran or who claim to be pro-Palestinian. These are mostly voices in the West who have adopted these extreme views to exploit them.
The campaign to support Bushnell’s actions appears coordinated and as if some of the accounts pushing this story received talking points such as using the term “self-immolate.” The word “immolate” is likely one most of those using it had never used before. It is not plausible large numbers of people suddenly learned this new word rather than writing “set himself on fire” or “burn oneself to death.” This is because “burning to death” sounds more harsh than “immolate.”
Why would the Iranian regime seek to exploit this tragedy in English-language media but not in other places? It is likely because Iran and its supporters in the West, some of whom are sympathetic to other regimes that back and host Hamas, want to create more crisis in the West but don’t actually approve of Bushnell’s actions in the Middle East or other places.
There is a complex background behind why this might be the case, but suffice it to say that the Iranian regime and other backers and hosts of Hamas don’t actually want people to protest by setting themselves on fire. They do, however, think such tragedies in the West will lead to controversy and that this can aid their cause. They are very good at bifurcating messaging to the West and messaging closer to home.
For instance, the pro-Iranian Al-Mayadeen media did not have any articles on Bushnell prominently displayed in Arabic on February 27 on its website. However, Al-Jazeera in English did have an op-ed titled ‘Suicide vs genocide: Rest in power, Aaron Bushnell: Bushnell’s extreme act of protest has put Western corporate media to shame.’ It’s worth noting the difference between coverage and perceptions of this in Arabic media, especially those more supportive of Iran and Hamas, and how the same media may cover the issue in English.
