As Israeli airstrikes intensified, many residents of Tehran felt compelled to flee the capital in search of safety. The Israeli military had issued warnings for civilians to evacuate certain areas, suggesting an escalation in aerial attacks. Despite these warnings, Iranian authorities dismissed them as "psychological warfare" and urged citizens not to panic. However, reports indicated heavy traffic jams on the roads leading out of Tehran as people sought refuge.

Residents expressed their fears and frustrations about the ongoing conflict. One individual noted a lack of sirens or shelters during attacks, while another described the anxiety felt by his family due to nightly bombardments. The absence of adequate bomb shelters became apparent, with many citizens resorting to hiding under furniture during explosions.

The death toll from the conflict had reached at least 224 in Iran, with civilians making up a significant portion of those casualties. In Israel, retaliatory strikes resulted in 24 civilian deaths. Amidst this turmoil, internet access for Iranians reportedly dropped by nearly 50%, further complicating communication and information sharing.

As concerns grew over food and medicine shortages due to rising prices and stockpiling behaviors among residents, checkpoints were established across Iran by security forces to maintain order amid fears of sabotage. Many families were sending loved ones away from Tehran for safety while remaining behind due to work obligations.

Overall, the situation highlighted deep-seated anxieties within Iranian society regarding safety measures and government assurances amidst escalating violence from external threats.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias and language manipulation, which will be thoroughly analyzed in this response.

One of the most striking aspects of the text is its clear anti-Israeli bias. The use of phrases such as "Israeli airstrikes intensified" creates a negative connotation, implying that Israel is the aggressor. The text also fails to provide context about the reasons behind Israel's actions, instead framing them as unprovoked attacks. This selective framing creates a narrative that Israel is responsible for the conflict, while Iran's actions are justified or downplayed. For instance, when discussing the death toll, the text mentions that "civilians making up a significant portion of those casualties" in Iran, without providing similar information about Israeli civilian casualties. This omission reinforces the notion that Israel's actions are more egregious than those of Iran.

Furthermore, the text employs virtue signaling by portraying Iranian authorities as dismissive and uncaring about their citizens' safety concerns. The quote from an individual resident expressing frustration about the lack of sirens or shelters during attacks serves to highlight Iranian authorities' supposed callousness. However, this portrayal neglects to consider alternative perspectives or potential complexities surrounding Iran's military preparedness and decision-making processes.

The text also exhibits cultural bias by perpetuating Western-centric views on conflict resolution and humanitarian concerns. The emphasis on civilian casualties and human suffering creates a narrative that aligns with Western values and priorities. In contrast, Iranian perspectives on national security and self-defense are marginalized or dismissed as mere "psychological warfare." This framing reinforces a binary worldview where Western nations are portrayed as champions of human rights and democracy, while non-Western nations like Iran are seen as authoritarian regimes prioritizing national interests over human lives.

Regarding linguistic bias, the text employs emotionally charged language to create a sense of urgency and concern for civilians in Tehran. Phrases such as "fleeing in search of safety," "heavy traffic jams," and "anxiety felt by his family" evoke feelings of sympathy for Iranian civilians while downplaying potential Israeli civilian experiences. Additionally, euphemisms like "escalation in aerial attacks" obscure agency behind Israeli military actions.

The selection and omission bias in this text is evident when considering sources cited or absent from discussion. There is no mention of any Israeli sources or perspectives on their military actions or motivations for retaliation against Iranian aggression. Furthermore, there appears to be no consideration given to alternative explanations for Israel's actions beyond allegations of unprovoked aggression.

Structural bias manifests through implicit support for institutional authority structures within both countries' governments without critically evaluating their legitimacy or accountability mechanisms. When discussing checkpoints established across Iran by security forces to maintain order amid fears of sabotage, there is no mention made regarding whether these measures infringe upon citizens' rights or freedoms.

Confirmation bias becomes apparent when examining how certain facts are presented without question or evidence-based analysis provided elsewhere within this piece; specifically concerning claims regarding food shortages due rising prices & stockpiling behaviors among residents which aren't backed up anywhere else within article content itself.



Temporal bias surfaces through presentist narratives focusing primarily upon current events rather than historical context surrounding ongoing tensions between these two nations; reinforcing simplistic notions around who started what exactly leading towards further polarization rather than nuanced understanding.



Lastly economic class-based biases emerge via discussions revolving around food shortages & medicine scarcity framed predominantly through lens economic inequality affecting lower socio-economic groups rather addressing root causes systemic issues driving these problems.



In conclusion every single written piece contains some form hidden biases manipulation regardless how neutral they may appear at first glance