Angelina Jolie, an actress who for years has presented herself with a transnational and caring image as a symbol of human rights and the voice of the world’s oppressed, is now facing the most obvious behavioral contradiction of her professional career. She once claimed her conscience compelled her to speak out against any injustice, yet now, in the face of the greatest human catastrophes against Iran, she has adopted a meaningful and calculated silence.
Last December, when Iran witnessed terrorist attacks and internal unrest, Jolie immediately reacted by posting on social media. A reaction that was precisely defined within the pre-determined narratives approved by Western political and media circles.
But today, the scene is completely different. The Shajareh Tayyibeh School in Minab, where innocent children became victims of an American war crime, and even the overt airstrikes by Israel and the US on Iran, which have killed thousands of innocent women, children, and people—none of these have been important enough for Angelina Jolie to even post an emoji of sympathy. Of course, this silence is surprising at first glance, but in a behind-the-scenes analysis, it is entirely predictable and calculated.
First, reacting to events in Iran is safe and profitable for Jolie only when it aligns with the dominant Western discourse against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Only then does speaking out bring her credibility, positive media coverage, and alignment with major powers. However, addressing a purely humanitarian crisis like the case of the Minab children, or condemning attacks carried out by Israel and the US, not only doesn’t fit into those predetermined narratives but also directly conflicts with the interests of her political and media supporters.
Second, supporting the Iranian people against the deadly attacks by Israel and the US, contrary to conventional political postures, carries no positive value for the Western political-media camp. Not only does it lack endorsement from major powers, but it might also destabilize her position as a figure who has always been at the forefront of Western-approved narratives.
In fact, Jolie knows very well that her symbolic capital with Western institutions depends on her loyalty to those same unwritten red lines that today condemn her to silence in the face of the deaths of Minab’s children and the airstrikes on the Iranian people.
From this perspective, this heavy, multi-layered silence is not a temporary or tactical retreat, but a clear betrayal of the humanitarian principles she long claimed to represent. She who once presented herself as the voice of the oppressed has now shown that oppressed people only become subjects for her when their voices conflict with the geopolitical enemies of the West and serve to strengthen those same narratives.
This dual behavior and her silence regarding the attacks by Israel and the US, and the Minab tragedy, serve as confirmation of this bitter truth: for Angelina Jolie, humanitarianism has merely been a tool to advance her personal and political goals, not a heartfelt commitment. As an actress, even in the arena of humanitarianism, she chooses her role based on a script that yields the most rewards and the least cost for her.
Faeze Aghamohammady