While the Islamic Republic attempts to use news of the return of expatriate artists to Iran as a promotional tool, the news of Bijan Mortazavi's entry into Iran has become more controversial than the main story.
The issue began with a report by Bahman Babazadeh, a music journalist, who announced that Mortazavi had come to Iran and was staying in a house near the Niavaran area. Hours later, this singer and his wife vehemently denied any news of entering Iran in separate videos. A story that today is known not to align with reality.
According to documents from Fidus News sources, Mortazavi not only entered Iran a week before his claimed time, but he also met with the Deputy Minister of Culture and had a meeting arranged with Masoud Pezeshkian through the Minister of Culture. This might have been intended to be the official media announcement of this singer's presence.
From Strong Denial to Airport Images; Questions About Managing the News of a Trip
Critics remind that Bijan Mortazavi has the right to travel to Iran; but when he strongly denies the news of this trip and then images of his presence in Iran are published, he must address this contradiction. The issue is not the trip itself; the issue is the gap between what happened and the narrative that was supposed to be presented to the public. If Mortazavi believes he did nothing wrong, why does he lack the courage to clearly announce the date of entry, travel plans, and meetings?
Based on accounts from informed sources, after the news of his entry was published by Bahman Babazadeh, Mortazavi called it a lie with a strong tone. But after Babazadeh threatened to release evidence of his entry, about 24 hours later, images of Mortazavi's entry were released. This sequence raises a clear question: on what basis was the initial denial made, and what happened that within a day, it was replaced by the release of images?
The main question is whether the immediate release of photos and images of Mortazavi's entry 24 hours after Babazadeh's threat was an attempt to manage the news of the trip, and according to the media team associated with Mortazavi, he genuinely had no trip until his entry into Iran on Wednesday.
The release of a photo by Dr. Samadizadeh on social media, which was supposed to be evidence of Mortazavi's presence on a flight to Iran on Wednesday, not only did not support Mortazavi's narrative but also led some users to point out that the entry time did not match the images and these images were undoubtedly from days before the claimed entry time.
New Images, Old Trip?
After this incident, a video of Mortazavi's conversation, images of kissing the soil of Iran, and a video of him and his wife driving in the streets of Tehran were also released. These images may show his personal feelings and experiences, but they do not address previous contradictions. Kissing the soil does not specify the entry date; driving in Tehran does not explain why the news of presence in Iran was initially denied with anger. The audience has the right to know whether that denial was a rejection of the trip itself or an attempt to prevent the premature release of news whose timing and manner of announcement had been predetermined.
This Iranian artist, instead of addressing the reasons for denying the actual travel time, has tried to cover the issue with the obvious right to travel to Iran in various interviews. While for the audience, the main issue is why the travel time was fabricated. The background of this story should be sought in the breached agreements between Babazadeh and Mortazavi or the loss of control over the government's method of information dissemination.
Which Plan Did the News Leak Disrupt?
The narrative from informed sources is that Mortazavi's entry was supposed to be announced after a few days through government media; however, its early release by Babazadeh disrupted the information dissemination plan. This narrative turns the disagreement between Mortazavi and Babazadeh into one of the potential explanations for subsequent contradictory behaviors. Nevertheless, determining each party's role and the existence of such coordination requires clarification of details and evidence.
The most sensitive part of the oral information is the possibility of returning Mortazavi to Imam Airport to retake photos and videos and convey a different entry time. If this is confirmed, the matter goes beyond a hasty denial and turns into staging a scene to create a false narrative. Mortazavi must explicitly explain on which day the entry images were recorded, whether he returned to the airport for filming after the initial entry, and who coordinated the release of these contents.
The questions are not complex: On what day did he enter Iran? Where was he between entry and the news release? Which officials did he meet and for what purpose? Why was the correct news called a lie? And what was in the travel plan or its announcement method that should not have been revealed earlier?
Mortazavi can address these ambiguities by announcing a clear timeline. Until then, emotional images and urban tour videos do not replace explanations. Someone who defends their decision must also take responsibility for narrating that decision; especially when their denial has become the starting point of distrust.
