Analysis Summary:

The article's claim that Iran's allies are not offering concrete support is partially verifiable. While some sources suggest a reluctance for direct involvement, others highlight rhetorical support and potential for future engagement. The article exhibits moderate bias through selective reporting and potentially exaggerating the lack of support.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** "Its proxy forces around the region have been largely silent in offering concrete support after attacks by Israel and now the United States."
  • Verification Source #2: Suggests Iran doesn't want a war with Israel or the US. This could explain the lack of concrete support.
  • Verification Source #3: Mentions Iran making no immediate public threats of retaliation after an attack blamed on Israel. This supports the claim of limited immediate response.
  • Verification Source #4: States that Iran has offered Russia rhetorical support for its war on Ukraine. This shows Iran does offer some form of support to allies, contradicting the "largely silent" aspect.
  • Verification Source #5: Mentions Iranians and their proxies providing ground forces in support of the Israel-Syria border. This contradicts the claim of no concrete support, although the date is 2018.
  • Verification Source #1: *Fails to cover* the specific claim of immediate support after attacks.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #2 and #3: Support the idea that Iran may be hesitant to engage in direct conflict, leading to a lack of immediate, concrete support from its allies.
• Verification Source #4: Contradicts the claim of complete silence by showing Iran offers rhetorical support to allies.
• Verification Source #5: Contradicts the claim of no concrete support, although it is from 2018.
• The article's claim is weakened by the fact that "concrete support" is not clearly defined. Rhetorical support, intelligence sharing, or supplying weapons could all be considered forms of support.