Summary of complaint
We received complaints from people who feel our coverage of the Israel-Iran conflict was biased in favour of Israel and against Iran.
Our response
The Israel-Iran conflict marked a significant escalation in tensions in the Middle East - this was clearly a fast-moving situation and we followed developments closely.
Throughout our comprehensive coverage of this conflict we gave the context of the relationship between the two countries and examined the humanitarian, political, economic, and diplomatic implications for Israel, Iran, the wider region and the world. Through the work of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ Persian Service, we ensured that each day of the conflict we were reflecting the experiences of people living in Iran.
In detailing the timeline of events we reflected that Israel was the first to launch strikes, included their stated reasons for doing this, Iran’s response, and that of the international community.  We also reported that Israel’s actions came while a negotiation process had been taking place between the USA and Iran with regards to Iran’s nuclear programme. We offered analysis of Israel’s actions with regards to international law.Â
We scrutinised the extent of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, including the position of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the global nuclear watchdog, and international intelligence agencies. ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ Verify examined how close Iran was to having a nuclear weapon, prior to strikes form the USA, which explained that the IAEA had found no proof of a systematic effort by Iran to move to a nuclear weapon:
The intervention of the United States, with their strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, signified an important point in the conflict. There have been contrasting narratives from the United States and Iran as to the damage these strikes have done. We reported on the facts we were able to establish and what was still unknown.
We reported in detail on the ceasefire and will continue to keep our audience up to date with news and analysis related to this story.