A Knife on the Margins of Protest: The ‘Chaos-Making’ Project Targeting Iranian Demonstrations in Europe
S. Rouzbeh
۱۴۰۴/۱۱/۰۱

S. Rouzbeh examines violence and provocation around Iranian demonstrations in Europe and the United States, asking whether they can divert attention from protesters’ demands, fracture solidarity and create a narrative of ‘chaos’.

S. Rouzbeh – A knife is not always just a knife; sometimes it is a ‘signature’. The signature of a moment when a lawful gathering, a civil right, a forum for seeking justice and protest is suddenly pulled off course and turned into a scene whose headline the next day is no longer ‘demands’ but ‘clashes’. That shift in the headline is the hidden objective: turning protest into an incident, demands into a case file, solidarity into division.

In Europe and the United States, the right to peaceful assembly and demonstration is recognised. Iranian exiles and migrants have also exercised this right for years to bring Iran’s voice to the attention of the media and politicians. But in recent years, recurring signs have emerged: people who, instead of listening, joining in or even expressing civil opposition, resort to abuse, provocation, attaching themselves to groups, creating tension and, at times, violence. Ultimately, such violence benefits neither the people of Iran nor the opposition; it merely provides narrative fuel for the label ‘chaos’.

There are plenty of examples. In London, Sky News reported clashes outside the Iranian embassy, arrests and several police officers being taken to hospital. Regardless of who started it, the incident had one result: shifting the focus from ‘why the protest is happening’ to the ‘clashes on the sidelines’. In another London case, Reuters reported on 20 June 2025 that police had arrested several people after clashes near the Iranian embassy and that two people had been taken to hospital; in a report dated 22 June 2025, it then reported that seven Iranians had been charged with causing grievous bodily harm. In the United States, an Associated Press report on the Los Angeles incident said that one person was accused of dangerously driving a U-Haul vehicle into the route of a demonstration in support of the people of Iran, and that the case was under investigation; AP (the Associated Press) documented the incident. In Germany, Die Zeit reported that two people with knife wounds had been taken to hospital and suspects arrested in Hamburg, while noting that the background to the incident and its connection to the demonstration remained unclear. That ‘ambiguity’ is precisely where we need to proceed with cool heads: neither co-opting the incident for propaganda nor dismissing it as ‘just an ordinary fight’.

Here a serious question arises: who are these people creating tension and violence on the margins of Iranian demonstrations? Why would someone who has gone abroad voluntarily put themselves at risk of being filmed, arrested and facing criminal charges? Definitive answers without evidence are of no help. But experience has shown that several types of actor are conceivable in such situations: small ideological groups for whom confrontation is an identity, as well as ‘grey’ operatives who use violence to stage a scene and then disappear into the shadows. Among the patterns worth noting in official Western security reports is the use of ‘proxies’ and ‘criminal networks’ to carry out operations or acts of violence in ways that leave them deniable. The British Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee report, in the ISC document, refers to such patterns, while Sweden’s Security Service, in its official statement, has spoken of Iran’s use of criminal networks in Sweden; Säpo’s text on the matter is clear. In the United States, the Treasury Department’s OFAC sanctions statement has discussed the role of a criminal network as an Iranian proxy, and the US State Department has referred to the same approach in its text. Even an analytical study by ICCT explains this link between ‘external operations’ and ‘connections to criminal networks’. The simple meaning of these sources is that ‘deniable violence’ can become a means of contaminating the protest environment, breaking the media’s focus and constructing a narrative in which the protester is presented not as a citizen making demands, but as a ‘disruptive element’.

But alongside official data and documented news reports, sometimes a human story can illuminate a dark corner. I was at an ordinary party; not a political meeting or a gathering of activists. One of my friends said they knew someone who might drop by. He came. It was a brief encounter. But before he had said a word, the traces of a violent life were visible: scars on his hands, arms and neck, and the kinds of tattoos that instinctively make you start asking questions. Then I saw that he was distressed. His silence was heavy. I began talking with him—not questioning him, not prying, just having a human conversation. He claimed that he had once been imprisoned in Iran, not for political reasons but for a criminal offence; he had a serious case against him, and then he was offered a deal: they would release him and provide him with money, a way out of the country and help along the way, in exchange for ‘making contact’ and ‘being present at scenes and causing chaos among the opposition’. But what he claimed went beyond defending the government: he said that sometimes he was asked to attach himself to different opposition groups and chant slogans against other groups, create tension or steer events towards a fight, so that no gathering would remain united and Iranians would be turned against one another. He said that later, when he saw women, young people and innocent people at demonstrations, he understood that ‘a clash’ is not just a clash; it is a tool, and he himself was a disposable tool. His eyes filled with tears. He said he could no longer bear it. He said, ‘I’m a product of that same country, and I want to lose myself to them,’ then left. I never saw him again. I do not know where he went. My friend also said they had not seen him again. But the sentence stayed with me: ‘They’re trying to stage a scene, not defend a belief.’

This article is not intended to pass judgement for the reader by declaring that all these incidents must have a single source. Some may simply be coincidences, or even ordinary urban disputes that happen alongside a demonstration. But experience has shown that whenever lawful assembly is tainted by violence, something dies in that moment: the credibility of the protest, the focus of the media and the crowd’s sense of psychological safety. And if someone deliberately seeks to sow division, spread hatred and provoke clashes in such situations, whatever the outcome, it does not serve the people of Iran. Because if the goal is freedom for our beloved Iran, these distractions must not affect the people’s struggle; instead, we must be careful and alert, and not act on emotion.

Now readers can draw their own conclusions. When a lawful demonstration turns into a scene of violence, who benefits? When disagreements turn into fights, who wins? And when criminal cases are brought, who remains and who is pushed out? No one needs to dictate the answer. We need only look at what is happening and ask ourselves: which objective, exactly, did the knife serve on the sidelines?

Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/archive-9244b63d-a71e-e243-7d34-1dc3ff97c281
Please credit the author and link to this edition.