Abstract:

This article critically examines the political discourse propagated by the so-called National Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI, a branch of FDD) concerning the resolution of Iran's profound water crisis. It analyses a specific media intervention by a NUFDI-affiliated alleged expert, Mehdi Ketabchi, who indirectly posits that post-Islamic regime, Iran should redirect national funds, currently allocated to ideological and military pursuits, toward the State of Israel for water management solutions. The article deconstructs this proposition as a mere substitution of external dependencies, metaphorically framed as a shift ‘from the mouth of Hezbollah to the belly of Yahwollah’. Furthermore, it challenges the underlying narrative of Israeli technological exceptionalism in the field of water desalination, contextualising Israel's advancements within broader regional and global technological developments. By situating NUFDI's claims within a framework of political instrumentalisation, this paper argues that the water crisis is being leveraged not to propose viable, sovereign solutions, but to advance a specific foreign policy agenda that risks compromising Iran's national assets and future political sovereignty. The analysis concludes that a sustainable resolution to Iran's hydrological challenges must be rooted in sound domestic governance, democratic decision-making, and international cooperation based on national interest, rather than on politically-motivated dependencies.

 

 

Introduction

Iran’s water crisis represents one of the most pressing environmental and governance challenges of the early 21st century. Decades of unsustainable agricultural policies, excessive dam construction, uncontrolled groundwater extraction, and systemic mismanagement under the Islamic regime have precipitated a situation of critical water scarcity (Madani, 2014; Foltz, 2002). This hydrological emergency, with its direct implications for food security, public health, and socio-economic stability, has inevitably become a fertile discursive battleground. Various political factions, both within and outside Iran, seek to frame the crisis in ways that advance their respective ideological and strategic agendas.

 

Among the actors operating in the diaspora political sphere, the National Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI) has emerged as a vocal proponent of a particular political trajectory on behalf Tel Aviv policy makers (Suren-Pahlav, 2025). This trajectory involves a radical reorientation of the Islamic regime's regional alliances. A notable feature of NUFDI's discourse has been its attempt to link the solution to Iran's domestic infrastructural collapse to the establishment of close ties with the State of Israel (Suren-Pahlav, 2021), often portrayed as a technological saviour. This narrative was crystallised in a media appearance by Mehdi Ketabchi, a member of NUFDI, on the Manoto News channel (Manoto News, 2024). His comments were subsequently amplified in a publication aligned with his proposed technological partner, The Jerusalem Post, which reported the proposal under the headline 'Iranian opposition figure: Use money sent to terrorists to buy Israeli water tech' (The Jerusalem Post, 2024). In this intervention, Ketabchi proposed that future national budgets, freed from the Islamic regime's ideological expenditures, be directed towards resolving the water crisis.

 

This performance follows a pattern identified in the structural analysis of NUFDI's own transitional planning: the deployment of a pseudo-technocratic veneer to launder a geopolitical directive. The language of technical necessity, delivered by affiliated figures, functions as a discursive shield, concealing an agenda that is, in practice, a translation of a Washington-scripted transition into the domain of national resource policy. The individual expert is thus a conduit, repackaging a strategic dependency as pragmatic problem-solving.

 

The argument is that NUFDI’s proposition constitutes a political manoeuvre with potentially dire consequences for the Iranian nation, rather than a viable policy solution. It posits that the proposal effectively advocates for a substitution of external dependencies, shifting from the Islamic regime’s alliances with groups like Hezbollah to a new, envisioned reliance on Israel. This paper metaphorically frames this shift as a move ‘from the mouth of Hezbollah to the belly of Yahweh’, arguing it is a Faustian bargain that merely changes the channel through which national wealth is drained. The article will deconstruct the narrative of Israeli technological exceptionalism in water management that underpins this argument, demonstrating its selective and politically motivated nature. Finally, it will contend that sustainable solutions to Iran’s water crisis must be grounded in principles of national sovereignty, democratic accountability, and technically sound governance, not in the replacement of one form of external patronage with another.

 

To properly deconstruct this proposition, it must be situated within its authentic context: the geopolitical framework of the so-called 'Cyrus Accord'. As previously documented, the 'Cyrus Accord' is not a diplomatic initiative but a foreign-imposed blueprint, conceived by figures like Len Khodorkovsky and Victoria Coates within the Washington-Tel Aviv axis, designed to pre-emptively subordinate Iran's post-theocratic sovereignty to Israeli security and American strategic interests (Suren-Pahlav, 2021). The current proposal to outsource Iran's hydrological sovereignty is not, therefore, a standalone policy suggestion; it is the practical implementation of this very blueprint, a deliberate pillar of a 'soft war architecture' aimed at tethering Iran's future infrastructure and economy to external control.

 

 

A Faustian Bargain: The Substitution of Dependencies

The core of NUFDI's proposition, as articulated by Mehdi Ketabchi, represents a straightforward yet profound reallocation of national resources. The suggestion to use funds, freed from the Islamic regime's ideological pursuits, for solving the water crisis is superficially logical. However, the critical detail lies in the intended recipient of these funds. By explicitly framing this reallocation within a policy paradigm that designates Israel as the primary technological partner, NUFDI is advocating for a massive diversion of Iranian national wealth to a foreign state.

 

This proposition constitutes nothing less than a mere substitution of dependencies. It is an attempt to replace one form of external reliance with another. If Iran's national wealth is currently being expended to support certain ideological proxies across the region, this new vision simply diverts that wealth towards a different external power. The core issue of the water crisis, a domestic crisis born of domestic failures, is thus sidestepped in favour of a political project that seeks to reorient Iran's geopolitical allegiances at the direct expense of its national assets. The problem, therefore, is reframed from one of sovereign mismanagement to one of geopolitical alignment.

 

The metaphorical journey "from the mouth of Hezbollah to the belly of Yahweh" captures the essence of this zero-sum dependency. In the current state, resources are consumed by one set of external commitments; in the proposed future, they would be consumed by another. The agency and wealth of the Iranian nation remain the constant, transferred from one patron to the next. This is not a vision of sovereign independence but of redefined clientelism, a political gambit disguised as a technical solution.

 

This dependency must be understood through the lens of the 'water-energy-food nexus,' a modern security paradigm where these sectors are inextricably linked. Water is not a siloed issue; it is the circulatory system of the nation, directly impacting agricultural output, energy production from hydropower, and overall economic stability. To outsource water management to a foreign state is to grant it potential leverage over Iran's food security and energy grid. The data, infrastructure, and operational control required for such a partnership would create a strategic chokehold, rendering Iran vulnerable to extortion in multiple critical domains. This is not mere clientelism; it is the balkanisation of Iran's resource sovereignty.

 

Ultimately, this proposed financial diversion must be recognised as more than a mere substitution of dependencies; it is a form of balkanisation. Just as the NUFDI emergency plan seeds political fragmentation through latent federalist constructs, its water policy seeks the dismemberment of Iran's resource sovereignty. To outsource water security, the very lifeline of a nation, is to surrender a fundamental pillar of statehood, creating a hydrological dependency that would render any future Iranian government permanently vulnerable to extortion and coercion, effectively fracturing national sovereignty from within.

 

Furthermore, the Israeli model of water security is predicated on a high-energy, capital-intensive approach centred on massive desalination. This makes water supply vulnerable to energy price shocks and requires significant, continuous financial investment. For a post-regime Iran facing immense economic challenges, locking the nation into such a costly technological path with a single foreign partner creates a dangerous long-term dependency, not just on the technology, but on the financial and political terms set by that partner.

 

 

Deconstructing the Myth of Israeli Technological Exceptionalism

To justify this strategic pivot, a systematic myth-making campaign is underway, one that portrays Israel as an unparalleled technological saviour in the field of water management. A critical examination of the facts, however, reveals a different story and contextualises this narrative as a disingenuous expression of concern for Iran's water scarcity, serving a single, overarching purpose: to lay the groundwork for the future appropriation of national resources.

 

Firstly, Israel is by no means the pioneer of large-scale water desalination. States across the Persian Gulf, such as Kuwait, have been employing this technology on a national scale since the 1950s. Presently, Saudi Arabia, in partnership with leading Japanese firms, stands as a global leader in this sector. The focus on Israel, to the exclusion of other global leaders in water technology from the United States, Japan, or Europe, appears politically, rather than technically, motivated.

 

Secondly, claims of unique Israeli innovation often rest upon technical specifics that could be characterised as less a monumental scientific achievement and more a matter of particular engineering application, such as pumping desalinated water into a natural lake (the Sea of Galilee) rather than conventional reservoirs. While technically distinct, this method holds no direct relevance to solving Iran's complex water crisis, the roots of which lie in unsustainable agricultural practices, rampant over-extraction from aquifers, and systemic environmental degradation (Madani, 2014). Iran's primary challenge is not a lack of seawater desalination capacity, but the catastrophic mismanagement of its existing freshwater resources. The concerted emphasis on desalination, coupled with the propagation of myths regarding Israeli hydrological prowess, functions as a pretext, sidestepping the necessary, complex domestic reforms in favour of a simplified narrative of external salvation.

 

Thirdly, the narrative of unique Israeli innovation often obscures its context within broader global technological trends. While Israel's Sorek plant is frequently cited for its scale, the global desalination market is and has long been dominated by companies from the United States, Japan, and South Korea, with Saudi Arabia remaining the world's largest producer of desalinated water (Jones et al., 2019). The technological foundations for reverse osmosis, the process used in modern plants, were developed globally, not in a single country. Furthermore, the claim that Israel recycles nearly 90% of its wastewater is impressive, yet it is a statistic that masks critical nuances. This high rate is a function of Israel's specific geography, concentrated population, and, crucially, the direct allocation of treated wastewater (TWW) for widespread agricultural irrigation. This model, while effective in its context, has raised significant concerns regarding soil salinization and the accumulation of pharmaceuticals and heavy metals in the food chain, a risk that would be magnified in Iran's diverse and often fragile agricultural ecosystems (Tal, 2016).

 

The portrayal of Israel as the pioneer of large-scale desalination is a historical oversimplification. As previously noted, Kuwait's Ministry of Electricity and Water had already established significant desalination capacity by the 1950s to meet its municipal needs (Darwish, 2014). By the time Israel commissioned its first major seawater reverse osmosis plant in Ashkelon in 2005, numerous large-scale facilities had been operating for decades in the Persian Gulf’s Arab states and elsewhere. This historical context further undermines the claim of unique Israeli pioneering and reinforces the politically-driven nature of singling out Israel as a sole technological partner.

 

A further, and fatal, flaw in the proposition is the profound disregard for the issue of scale and geographical context. Israel is a compact, coastal nation whose water solutions are engineered for its specific, limited geography. Iran, by contrast, is a vast continental state, approximately 80 times larger than Israel, with immensely diverse climatic zones and a population dispersed across great distances, often far from the sea. The high-energy, centralised desalination model championed by Israel is fundamentally unscalable to address Iran's distributed water crisis, which is rooted in the mismanagement of inland aquifers and river systems. The astronomical cost and energy required to pump desalinated water from the coast to Iran's arid heartlands make this proposal not only impractical but economically suicidal. This glaring oversight reveals that the proposal is not a serious technical assessment, but a political one, oblivious to the physical and logistical realities of the nation it claims to want to help.

 

The most profound indictment of this myth is its erasure of Iranian expertise. For decades, a dedicated cadre of hydrologists, water engineers, and environmental scientists within Iran has risked reprisal to document and analyse the water crisis, while Iranian specialists in the global diaspora lead in fields like sustainable agriculture and resource management. The solution does not lie in a multi-billion-dollar transfer to a foreign state, but in the liberation and empowerment of this very Iranian intellectual capital. NUFDI's proposal, by ignoring this reality, reveals its true character: it is not a plan for national reconstruction, but for the managerial colonization of Iran by preferred external actors, dismissing the very brain trust that could forge a sovereign solution.

 

Ultimately, the proposition to outsource Iran's water crisis to Israel misdiagnoses the problem. Iran's hydrological emergency is not a failure of technology but a catastrophic failure of governance, policy, and institutions (Madani, 2014). The core challenges, unsustainable agricultural water quotas, perverse subsidies encouraging water-intensive crops, rampant illegal well digging, and the systematic destruction of aquifers, are political and managerial in nature. No foreign technology, regardless of its provenance, can solve a crisis rooted in domestic governance failures. A sustainable solution requires the empowerment of Iran's own hydrologists, engineers, and democratic institutions to implement difficult but necessary reforms in water allocation, agricultural policy, and environmental protection (Molavi, 2021). Investing billions in foreign desalination plants, while ignoring the systemic corruption and inefficiency that would plague their operation and water distribution, is a recipe for continued failure, merely with more expensive infrastructure.

 

 

The Water Crisis as a Pretext for Political Normalisation

For groups such as the NUFDI, the water crisis appears to function primarily as a political pretext. It is a pretext for the normalisation of relations with Israel at any cost, a pretext for justifying the transfer of national wealth to another state, and a pretext for the future economic exploitation of the Iranian people. The spectacle, as outlined in the original critique, follows a clear trajectory: it begins with a "technical expert" engaging in performative mannerisms, continues with convoluted narratives of Israeli technological superiority, and culminates in promises that risk transforming Iran into a dependent "backyard."

 

This instrumentalisation of a genuine national emergency undermines the potential for a sober, democratic debate about Iran's future. It presents a complex socio-environmental problem as having a single, geopolitically-charged solution, thereby foreclosing other options. By tying the resolution of a critical humanitarian issue to a specific and contentious foreign policy alignment, NUFDI effectively holds the welfare of the Iranian people hostage to its own political project. The resolution of Iran's water crisis is thus held ransom to the precondition of a fundamental shift in regional alliances, a manoeuvre that subordinates national welfare to ideological reorientation.

 

This manoeuvre is a textbook example of the 'shock doctrine,' where periods of national trauma and disorientation are exploited to ram through radical policies that would be rejected under stable conditions. The water crisis, and the potential volatility of regime collapse, serves as the perfect 'shock' to justify the irreversible outsourcing of a critical resource. The promise of a quick fix masks a long-term agenda: the permanent alienation of national assets and the establishment of structural dependencies before a democratic consensus can form. It is disaster capitalism applied to Iran's hydrological emergency.

 

The coordinated nature of this campaign was further exposed just one day after Ketabchi's interview, when Saeed Ghasseminejad, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), publicly confirmed the strategic linkage. He re-tweeted, 'We have come to Israel to see what kind of expertise Israeli experts have for the problems that Iran faces, for example, the water crisis,' explicitly framing this outreach as part of the 'Iran Prosperity Project', a post-revolution reconstruction blueprint supported by Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi (Ghasseminejad, 2025). This admission from a central figure within the FDD-NUFDI ecosystem reveals that the instrumentalisation of the water crisis is not a peripheral suggestion but a deliberate pillar of a specific political camp's transition planning, designed to pre-emptively tether Iran's recovery to a contentious geopolitical alignment.

 

This manoeuvre represents a profound act of symbolic appropriation, parallel to the desecration of the name 'Cyrus the Great' to sanctify a project of subordination. Just as the Cyrus Accord sought to steal the iconography of Iranian grandeur for geopolitical legitimisation, NUFDI's discourse seeks to co-opt the potent and visceral symbol of the water crisis, a source of authentic national suffering and anxiety, and weaponise it. They are not merely proposing a technical fix; they are attempting to hijack a national emergency and conscript it into the ideological labour of justifying a new dependency, thereby performing a second dispossession, this time, upon the very narrative of national survival.

 

History offers a stark warning: the annals of Iran's past are replete with examples where the initial entry point for foreign domination was the seemingly benign offer of technical or financial assistance. What begins as 'help' swiftly metastasises into unaccountable influence and ultimate control. The proposition to hand Israel a central role in managing Iran's water is not innovation; it is the recycling of an old colonial script, merely dressed in the modern lexicon of technology and crisis management. This pattern of 'technical assistance' evolving into political control is a recurring theme in the geopolitics of resource exploitation, and Iran must not fall for it again.

 

Ultimately, this campaign operates on the logic of a predatory sales tactic that transcends mere political instrumentalisation. It manufactures a false crisis of confidence in indigenous solutions to promote a single, overpriced 'miracle' cure from a designated partner, a classic strategy to secure a monopolistic contract. The entire discourse functions as a high-stakes marketing strategy, where the narrative of Israeli exceptionalism and the pretext of the water crisis are merely promotional materials. The ultimate goal is not to quench Iran's thirst, but to milk its national treasury and establish a permanent, lucrative dependency. It is, in essence, a propaganda-to-contract pipeline, where the price is a permanent mortgage on Iran's resource sovereignty.

 

 

Towards a Sovereign Framework for Water Security

A viable pathway out of Iran’s hydrological emergency lies not in the outsourcing of sovereignty but in its reclamation. This necessitates a fundamental break from the failed governance models that have brought the nation to the brink of catastrophe. The scholarly evidence, as collated by platforms like ‘IranCrisis.com’ (2023), unequivocally demonstrates that the core of the crisis is not a lack of technology but a systemic failure of governance, characterised by unsustainable agricultural quotas, perverse subsidies, and the institutionalised destruction of aquifers. While such analyses document the symptoms, the ultimate cause remains the corrupt and ideologically driven nature of the Islamic regime itself. Therefore, the primary and non-negotiable prerequisite for any sustainable solution is the replacement of this regime with a legitimate, nationalist government empowered to act in the long-term interest of the Iranian nation and its environment.

 

Such a sovereign authority must implement a multi-pronged framework centred on autonomy and sound management:

1. Immediate Governance Triage and Empowerment: The first task must be to empower Iran’s own civil engineers, hydrologists, and water managers to lead an emergency assessment. This involves establishing transparent data systems and halting the most destructive practices, such as illegal well digging and the approval of ecologically disastrous projects, which are hallmarks of the current regime’s mismanagement.

 

2. Agricultural Transformation: A legitimate government must possess the courage to dismantle the archaic and politically motivated water quota system and abolish perverse subsidies that incentivise water-intensive crops in arid regions. Policy must be reoriented towards supporting sustainable and smart agriculture suited to Iran’s diverse climatic zones.

 

3. Investment in Indigenous Capacity: National funds and international cooperation must be directed towards empowering Iran’s scientific and technical diaspora to collaborate with domestic experts. The focus should be on developing localised solutions, from the restoration of traditional qanat systems to the adoption of modern irrigation technologies, that address the specific needs of different regions.

 

4. Principled and Diverse International Tenders: Where foreign technology is genuinely required, it should be acquired through open, transparent international tenders. This ensures Iran can source the most cost-effective and appropriate solutions from a competitive global market, including firms from Europe, Japan, or the United States, rather than being locked into a monopolistic and politically charged dependency on a single state.

 

5. Ecological Restoration as a National Priority: A cornerstone of this framework must be the long-term rehabilitation of critically endangered ecosystems, such as the Gavkhouni wetland and Lake Urmia. A nationalist government would recognise that a healthy natural water cycle is not a luxury but the foundation of national water security and economic stability.

 

This sovereign approach is the direct antithesis of the dependency model advocated by NUFDI. It is complex and demands integrity, but it is the only path that leads to a lasting and dignified resolution, placing Iran’s destiny firmly back in the hands of its own people.

 

 

Conclusion: The Imperative of Sovereign Solutions

Iran's water crisis is, at its heart, a technical and managerial challenge born of decades of failed governance. Its sustainable resolution depends on a fundamental overhaul of domestic policies, the adoption of appropriate technologies, which could be sourced from a diverse set of global partners, including American, Japanese, or European firms, contingent strictly upon national interest, the termination of environmentally destructive projects, and the long-term rehabilitation of natural ecosystems.

 

A credible pathway forward, as outlined in the analysis of post-regime necessities, must be rooted in 'Operational Triage', the immediate restoration of essential services to prevent societal collapse. A sovereign, domestically-led water management plan is therefore not a long-term ideal but a non-negotiable prerequisite for stabilisation. To predicate this triage function on a contentious geopolitical alignment is to recklessly gamble with the nation's immediate security and stability upon the regime's fall.

 

Beyond its geopolitical recklessness, this proposal is a constitutional obscenity. No unelected transitional body, operating under a provisional mandate, possesses the legitimate authority to broker deals that would bind a future, democratic Iran for generations. To commit national funds and cede managerial control over a vital resource to a foreign state is an act that can only be undertaken by a parliament with a direct mandate from the Iranian people. Such a move by a transitional authority would not only be illegal but would represent a usurpation of the national will, echoing the very authoritarian practices it claims to oppose.

 

The future of Iran must be determined through democratic processes, by its own people, and for its own national interests. It is imperative to maintain vigilance against the dangerous narrative advanced by NUFDI, which seeks merely to replace one form of dependency with another. The proposition to divert national wealth from the Islamic regime's regional proxies to a state framed as a hydrological saviour is a Faustian bargain that fails to address the root causes of the crisis. True resolution requires collective wisdom, integrity, and a firm commitment to sovereign governance. It demands investing in Iran's own institutional capacity and pursuing international cooperation on its own terms, not a cynical substitution of the channels through which the nation's wealth is drained. The path to water security lies not in the belly of a new patron, but in the hands of a sovereign and democratic Iran.

 

Finally, any proposition for such a profound dependency must be evaluated against the unalterable backdrop of geopolitics and historical precedent. For the past forty-six years, the State of Israel has consistently acted as a primary antagonist to the Iranian nation, a stance documented not merely as a conflict with the Islamic regime but as a sustained campaign against Iranian nation (Suren-Pahlav, 2014; 2024). This enmity has included a persistent and active campaign to balkanise Iran, supporting separatist elements and promoting narratives of internal fragmentation as a core component of its strategic policy towards the nation (Suren-Pahlav, 2021b). To believe that a state engaged in such a long-standing project of undermining Iran's territorial integrity would suddenly transform into a benevolent guardian of Iran’s hydrological security is a dangerous fantasy. As the British adage warns, the leopard cannot change its spots. Recent history offers a stark lesson: Israel’s conduct, such as its duplicitous engagement with Qatar, signing a pact whilst simultaneously planning an attack, demonstrates a strategic culture where agreements are tactical manoeuvres, not foundations for trust. A survey of its international relations reveals no strategic partnership founded on genuine mutuality and respect; rather, its alliances are overwhelmingly characterised by a profoundly asymmetric dynamic, which critics have characterised as fundamentally parasitical.  Therefore, even if the myth of Israeli hydrological supremacy were accurate, which this article has demonstrated it is not, vesting a historic adversary, and one actively seeking its fragmentation, with control over a resource as vital as water would constitute nothing less than an act of national suicide. The solution to Iran’s water crisis lies in reclaiming national sovereignty, not in surrendering it to a power that has proven itself a perpetual enemy.

 

​

 

References:

• Darwish, M.A. (2014). ‘The history of desalination in Kuwait’, Desalination and Water Treatment, 52(4-6), pp. 1139-1154.

• Foltz, R.C. (2002) ‘Iran’s water crisis: cultural, political, and ethical dimensions’, Journal of Islamic Studies, 13(2), pp. 181-198.

• Ghasseminejad, S. [@SGhasseminejad] (2024). We have come to Israel to see what kind of expertise... [Tweet]. X. Available at: https://x.com/SGhasseminejad/status/1989048513162850522 [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• IranCrisis.com (2023). Iran’s Water Crisis: The Chronicles of a Looming Catastrophe. Water Alternatives. Available at: https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/cwd/item/109-irancrisis.com [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• Jones, E., Qadir, M., van Vliet, M.T.H., Smakhtin, V. and Kang, S. (2019). ‘The state of desalination and brine production: A global outlook’, Science of the Total Environment, 657, pp. 1343-1356.

• Madani, K. (2014) ‘Water management in Iran: what is causing the looming crisis?’, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 4(4), pp. 315-328.

• Manoto News (2024) Interview with Mehdi Ketabchi on Iran's water crisis. [Twitter/X]. 12 November. Available at: https://x.com/ManotoNews/status/1987579073174839490 [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• Molavi, R. (2021). ‘Iran’s Water Crisis: Indigenous Solutions for a Sovereign Future’, The International Journal of Environmental Studies, 78(3), pp. 367-385.

• NUFDI (2025) Iran: Emergency Phase, First 100–180 Days. [online] Available at: https://fund.nufdiran.org/projects/ipp/research/emergency-phase-booklet [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav. S., (2014) ‘How the West, Israel, and the Islamic Regime Employ the 'Comparative Fallacy' to Discredit Iran’s Patriotic Movement?’, suren-pahlav.com (25 August). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/west-israel-islamic_regime-and-comparative-fallacy.html [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav. S., (2021a) ‘The Cyrus Accord as Myth and Strategy: Fabricated Antiquity, Foreign Power, and Iran’s Sovereignty’, suren-pahlav.com (02 February). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/the-cyrus-accord-as-myth-and-strategy-fabricated-antiquity-foreign-power-and-iran-s-sovereignty.html [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav. S., (2021b) ‘Brenda Shaffer and FDD’s ‘Iran Is More Than Persia’ and the Weaponisation of Iran’s Linguistic Diversity’, suren-pahlav.com (05 May). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/brenda-shaffer-fdd-iran-is-more-than-persia-weaponisation-of-linguistic-diversity.html [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav. S., (2024) ‘Know Thyself, Know Thy Enemy: 'Misinformation,' My Ally & the Enemy of My Enemy’, suren-pahlav.com (26 March). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/know-thyself-know-thy-enemy-misinformation-my-ally-and-the-enemy-of-my-enemy.html [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• Suren-Pahlav. S., (2025) ‘Deconstructing Iran's Emergency Phase: A Strategic Analysis of the First 100-180 Days of Post-Regime Transition’, suren-pahlav.com (2 August). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/deconstructing-iran-s-emergency-phase.html [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].

• Tal, A. (2016). ‘Rethinking the sustainability of Israel's irrigation practices in the Drylands’, Water Research, 90, pp. 387-394.

• The Jerusalem Post (2024). 'Iranian opposition figure: Use money sent to terrorists to buy Israeli water tech'. [online] Available at: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-866130 [Accessed 14 Nov. 2025].