UANI Statement on the Misleading Discussion on the Targeting of Civilian Infrastructure in Iran

(New York, NY)—Responding to the factual inaccuracies about civilian infrastructure in Iran, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) Chairman Jeb Bush, CEO Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, and Director of IRGC Research Kasra Aarabi, issued the following joint statement:

“The discussion surrounding the targeting of so-called civilian infrastructure in Iran have been dishonest and misleading. The reality is that the Islamic regime has intentionally embedded its military, security, and intelligence apparatus across Iran’s civilian infrastructure—and exploits much of it for military purposes.

From the IRGC’s control over hydrocarbons and water supply to its exploitation of universities for researching and procuring lethal military technology—including chemical weapons—there is no true civilian private sector when it comes to Iran’s critical infrastructure. This infrastructure is intertwined with the regime’s military, security, and intelligence apparatus, chiefly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It is either fully owned by the regime or operates under the guise of a “private-state run” entity (khosoolati in Farsi), in which the regime’s military apparatus partially owns the company, often in formal partnership with a shell company that it also controls.

The IRGC has ensured its control over such critical infrastructure not only to advance its military objectives but also to generate lucrative profits that enrich its corrupt oligarchy at the expense of the welfare of the Iranian people. In fact, this infrastructure has often been weaponized by the IRGC to violently suppress the population.

Let’s be clear: critical infrastructure in Iran is not under the control of the civilian population. Rather, it is firmly in the hands of the IRGC and other elements of the regime’s military, security, and intelligence apparatus. This is not to advocate for or against strikes on such infrastructure—such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis and assessed against their impact on civilian life, as the U.S. military has been carefully doing. However, omitting this critical information from ongoing discussions of these strikes is both dishonest and misleading.”