🩸 🥛 🚀 🤐 🌊 — Follow the Silence
The Factories the Regime Did Not Defend
🩸 RedBloodJournal.com — A Record. A Voice. A Purpose.
The Islamic Republic has never been shy about turning civilian damage into political theater. When a residential building is hit, when a civilian neighborhood is damaged, or when an attack can be presented as proof of enemy brutality, the machinery of propaganda normally activates immediately. Cameras arrive, officials condemn, state television repeats the images, and the event becomes part of the regime’s narrative of victimhood. That pattern is precisely why silence deserves attention when it appears in places where outrage would normally be politically useful.
In a recent interview, Amirfarshad Ebrahimi raised a question that may be more important than the entire discussion about dairy companies, subsidies, bank loans, monopolies, and political favoritism. He pointed to a group of industrial facilities connected publicly to ordinary food and dairy businesses that were reportedly attacked during wartime, yet the Islamic Republic did not respond with the kind of outrage normally expected when civilian industry is struck. According to his account, that unusual silence is not a side detail. It may be the most revealing part of the story.
The interview specifically discusses facilities associated with Sabah Dairy and Gonbad Dairy Industries, along with another food-related industrial site. Ebrahimi says that Sabah-related facilities in Tehran and Isfahan were attacked and that a Gonbad dairy-related location was struck heavily. He then makes the far more serious allegation that these facilities were involved in producing solid material connected to missile production. What caught his attention was not merely that the sites were targeted, but that the government appeared to say almost nothing afterward.
That creates a question the regime’s own behavior makes difficult to ignore. If these were simply ordinary dairy or food factories, the propaganda opportunity would have been obvious. The government could have shown damaged production lines, destroyed storage facilities, frightened workers, ruined food supplies, broken refrigeration systems, and the consequences for ordinary consumers. It could have accused its enemies of targeting civilian infrastructure and food production, something completely consistent with the way the Islamic Republic normally communicates during conflict. According to the interview, however, that did not happen. Instead of a media campaign, there was an unusual lack of explanation.
When Silence Becomes Evidence of a Question
Silence by itself does not prove what was happening inside these facilities. It does not establish missile production, military ownership, or a hidden strategic mission on its own. But when a government behaves differently than it normally does, the inconsistency deserves examination. The Islamic Republic understands propaganda, knows when public outrage is politically useful, and knows how to frame civilian casualties and industrial damage. When that machinery remains quiet, the better question is not simply what was hit, but why the regime did not want people looking too closely at what was hit.
That distinction matters because the public identity of a company does not necessarily reveal everything it does. A corporation known for milk, yogurt, or ice cream may also own transportation businesses, chemical operations, plastics manufacturing, warehouses, industrial machinery, real estate, logistics companies, and dozens of subsidiaries. The name on the front gate may describe the consumer-facing business without describing the entire network behind it. The interview’s allegation therefore reaches beyond the claim that military figures owned dairy companies. It raises the more serious possibility that parts of a civilian-looking corporate network may have been integrated into the regime’s wider military-industrial system.
The Sabah and Gonbad Connection
The interview places particular emphasis on Sabah Dairy and Gonbad Dairy Industries. Earlier in the discussion, Ebrahimi traces these businesses back to the Ebrahimi family and focuses on the military history of Sultan Ali Ebrahimi. He describes a background connected to the IRGC, the 41st Sarallah Division, Qassem Soleimani, and later positions linked to the Quds Force. The emergence and expansion of Gonbad Dairy Industries is then described alongside government-backed loans, access to national land, and political connections.
None of that, by itself, proves that a dairy factory produced missile-related material, but it does make the later allegation more significant. If a company with deep military connections receives large government support, expands rapidly, operates across multiple industries, and later has facilities selected as military targets, the relationships deserve investigation. The question is no longer simply whether a former military official became a businessman. The question becomes whether the business ever truly separated from the military system.
A Dairy Company Can Be More Than a Dairy Company
Modern missile programs do not operate inside one building marked “Missile Factory.” They require supply chains involving chemicals, specialized materials, transportation, storage, industrial processing, machine tools, electronics, engineering, procurement, warehousing, and companies capable of operating behind ordinary commercial identities. That is especially important in a sanctioned economy, where a country attempting to protect sensitive programs from foreign intelligence and sanctions would have every incentive to distribute production through civilian-looking companies, subsidiaries, intermediaries, and industrial networks.
This does not mean every company with military connections is producing military material. It means that the public label attached to a business cannot automatically be assumed to describe every function inside the network. The consumer may see dairy, the military may see infrastructure, and the intelligence service selecting a target may see something else entirely. That difference in perspective is central to understanding why an apparently ordinary factory can suddenly become strategically important during wartime.
Why Was the Dairy Sector So Protected?
The interview repeatedly returns to another question: why did the regime appear to give such extraordinary support to the dairy sector? Ebrahimi discusses preferential loans, government-backed credit, subsidized currency, land transfers, state assistance, and close relationships with politically connected families. At the same time, he describes ordinary livestock farmers struggling to survive, unable to sell milk profitably, squeezed by middlemen, and crushed by rising feed costs.
That contrast is important because if the government was spending heavily to support the dairy industry, one would expect the people actually producing the milk to benefit as well. Yet the picture presented in the interview is the opposite: major corporations appear protected while independent producers remain financially vulnerable. One explanation is ordinary economic favoritism, where large corporations gain political access while small producers lose bargaining power. The interview, however, raises another possibility: perhaps some of the companies receiving extraordinary protection were valuable for reasons beyond dairy production.
If that were true, the government’s preference for certain companies would make more sense. The state would not simply be protecting milk production; it could also be protecting industrial infrastructure with strategic value. The interview does not prove that conclusion on its own, but the combination of unusual financial support, military connections, wartime targeting, and subsequent silence makes the question difficult to dismiss.
Mihan Must Be Treated Separately
Credibility requires keeping different allegations separate. The interview discusses Mihan Ice Cream and Dairy Products extensively and describes what Ebrahimi characterizes as long-standing ties to government and security institutions. He discusses Mihan’s history during the Iran-Iraq War, alleged use of company facilities during the Islamshahr protests, large-scale government support, banking relationships, land and agricultural acquisitions, and what he presents as preferential treatment.
But the transcript does not directly say, in the section concerning missile-related solid material, that Mihan factories were producing that material. That distinction must remain clear. Mihan belongs to the larger story of how major dairy corporations became intertwined with the Islamic Republic’s political, banking, agricultural, and security structure, while the specific missile-material allegation in the interview is tied to the Sabah/Gonbad-related facilities and other industrial sites mentioned in that section.
Separating those claims strengthens the report because it prevents suspicion from becoming accusation without evidence. A serious investigation becomes more persuasive when each allegation is attached only to the evidence that actually supports it.
Follow the Silence
The most important investigative principle in this story may be the simplest one: do not only study what governments say; study what they refuse to say. Propaganda is selective by design. Governments amplify information that serves them and suppress information that creates uncomfortable questions. That means silence is not proof, but it can be direction.
If one civilian factory is attacked and the regime produces days of outrage while another is attacked and barely mentioned, ask what distinguishes the two. If a company receives unusual government support, ask why. If its owners have military connections, ask whether those connections ended when they entered business. If a facility is selected as a wartime target, ask what the attacker believed was inside. If the government refuses to explain the target publicly, ask why explanation may have been more dangerous than silence.
These questions do not require conspiracy thinking. They require observation. The regime’s own pattern of communication creates the comparison. When that pattern suddenly changes, the change itself becomes worthy of investigation.
🩸 The Red Blood Perspective
Red Blood does not need to manufacture certainty where certainty does not exist. The interview makes a serious allegation: that some apparently civilian food and dairy-related facilities were involved in producing material connected to Iran’s missile program, and that the Islamic Republic’s unusual silence after those facilities were struck may reveal that their strategic role was something the regime did not want publicly examined.
That claim deserves verification through documents, ownership records, satellite imagery, corporate filings, military procurement records, sanctions data, witness testimony, and independent investigation. The interview alone cannot provide the final answer, but it can identify the questions that deserve to be pursued.
The behavior described in the interview also reveals a larger truth about systems where government, military, banking, and industry overlap. The public-facing identity of a company may tell only part of the story. A facility may produce food while a subsidiary serves another purpose. A corporation may employ thousands of ordinary civilians while a small portion of its wider network serves strategic government functions. During war, the outside world may therefore see a target very differently from the way the public sees the brand.
That is why the silence matters. Perhaps the regime stayed quiet not because nothing important happened, but because explaining what happened would have required explaining why those particular facilities mattered. In a system built on layers of overlapping institutions, the most revealing evidence may sometimes be found not in the official statement, but in the statement that never comes.
🌊✨ Ocean of Love and Positivity Perspective
The purpose of uncovering hidden systems should never be to turn suspicion into hatred. Ordinary workers inside these companies may know nothing about the decisions made above them. A truck driver may simply be delivering milk, a technician may be repairing refrigeration equipment, a farmer may simply be trying to sell his product, and a family may depend entirely on a factory wage. The responsibility belongs with those who make hidden decisions, construct secret relationships, direct military programs, move public money, and place civilian infrastructure inside strategic systems without public knowledge or consent.
That is where accountability should move. The answer is not collective blame; the answer is transparency. A healthy society should know where public money goes, who owns major corporations, what government subsidies are funding, and whether civilian companies are being used for purposes the public was never told about.
The Ocean of Love does not ask us to ignore darkness. It asks us to see darkness clearly without allowing it to reproduce itself inside us. Expose what is hidden, protect those who are innocent, hold the responsible accountable, correct what can be corrected, and prevent what can be prevented. Truth should serve life, responsibility, and awareness rather than becoming another vehicle for revenge.
In an Ocean of Love and Positivity.
🩸🌊✨ Fantastic!
🏭
The Regime’s Silent Factories
Oct 7, 2026
The provided sources examine how the Iranian regime weaponizes propaganda and strategic silence when civilian-facing food and dairy facilities, particularly those linked to politically and militarily connected families like the Ebrahimis, are targeted during wartime. An interview highlights that while ordinary dairy farmers struggle financially, major corporations receive heavy state subsidies and are suspected of concealing military-industrial networks, such as solid material production for missiles, beneath their commercial identities. Because the government actively avoids media attention on these specific strikes rather than manufacturing the usual outrage, investigators are urged to scrutinize corporate supply chains and government favoritism. Ultimately, the analysis emphasizes that transparency and accountability should target the architects of these hidden systems rather than ordinary, unsuspecting workers who depend on these companies for their livelihoods.