Follow us on social

2048px-shrine_of_john_the_baptist_great_umayyid_mosque_damascus

US-funded media spreads bizarre conspiracy theory about Shi'a Muslims

The charges against the al-Khoe’i Foundation were so wild that the State Department had to step in and disavow the story.

Analysis | QiOSK

The U.S. government’s Arabic-language news channel amplified a conspiracy theory about a Shi’a Muslim foundation so bizarre that even the U.S. State Department disavowed it on Saturday.

The U.S.-funded outlet Alhurra ran a brief web story on Friday about how Iran may be “spreading terrorism” in Europe through the al-Khoe’i Foundation, a London-based Shi’a Muslim institution. Alhurra’s only source was a dubious report by the Israeli think tank Alma, and it did not include a response from al-Khoe’i Foundation.

The U.S. State Department rebuffed the article on Saturday.

“Al-Khoe’i Foundation is a well-regarded international charitable and educational organization that has been doing good work since its establishment in 1989,” the department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs clarified in a Twitter statement.

The foundation was created in 1989 by the Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Abul-Qasim al-Khoe’i, then living in exile. It now represents the Shi’a Muslim community at United Nations consultations, and runs mosques around the world, including the largest Shi’a mosque in New York.

Both al-Khoe’i and his successor, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have opposed the Iranian model of Shi’a theocracy. Al-Khoe’i’s son, Abdul-Majid al-Khoe’i, was assassinated in 2003 by followers of the anti-American populist Muqtada al-Sadr.

The United States has long tried to court Sistani as an ally in Iraq, as he is well-respected and regarded as a political moderate. Sistani even hosted Pope Francis during the Pontiff’s visit to Iraq earlier this year.

Alma’s report provides no evidence that al-Khoe’i Foundation is actually connected to terrorism, and frequently conflates the Iranian regime’s ideology with Shi’a Islam as a religion. For example, the report complains that al-Khoe’i Foundation “promotes the principles of Shia [sic] around the world,” and is “spreading the Shia [sic] in Europe.”

The report’s main piece of evidence connecting al-Khoe’i Foundation to Iran is spurious: the foundation’s Paris mosque is listed in the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library, a Michigan-based academic institute whose name sounds similar to an Iranian religious institution called the Ahlul Bayt World Assembly.

However, the two are different organizations, and “Ahlul Bayt” is a common Islamic religious term referring to the family of the Prophet Muhammad.

Al-Khoe’i Foundation later clarified to Alhurra that it has no connection to the Ahlul Bayt World Assembly or the Iranian government.

Alma’s report also claims that al-Khoe’i Foundation helps finance the Houthi rebellion in Yemen. Its evidence is an article claiming that “Iranian Shi’a institutions” in Britain are supporting the Houthis under the guise of humanitarian aid. The article only cites anonymous sources, and first appeared on a website founded by a former Egyptian official to defend Arab regimes like Egypt, the Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.

Alhurra’s decision to promote these claims sent the U.S. government scrambling to control the damage.

The State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs issued its statement on Saturday, and Alhurra corrected the story with comments from al-Khoe’i Foundation.

“The writer is either completely unaware of what he writes…or has some motive,” said Sheikh Isma’il al-Khaliq, head preacher at the foundation’s Paris mosque. “Al-Khoe’i Foundation’s approach is to spread Islamic cultural and educational thought, found in the approach of the Prophet and Ahlul Bayt.”

Al-Khaliq added that the foundation’s methods are “cultural and intellectual work, not political work.”

But the damage was already done, as Alhurra’s original story was reprinted on a variety of Arabic-language news websites. And the State Department’s statement prompted the Jerusalem Post to run its own story repeating Alma’s claims.

The U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Alhurra, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Shrine of John the Baptist, Great Umayyid Mosque, Damascus (James Gordon/Creative Commons)
Analysis | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.