You did not understand his point fully.1) Reuters stating something without providing any evidence does not constitute "proof".
2) Yes, Reuters has and is spreading propaganda and falsehood against Iran. Their purported "reputation" for professionalism, integrity and impartiality does not go beyond the imperial realm of domination.
3) It's you who are confused. Reuters never claimed Iranian officials told them their government had supplied weapons to Russia after the start of the conflict. Reuters simply makes the unproven and questionable claim that Iran promised further drone supplies. A promise is not an actual deed. Even if true, it may refer to deliveries after the end of the Ukraine war.
In short, you have nothing to substantiate your allegation that Iran transferred weaponry to Russia during the ongoing conflict. Strictly nothing but hazardous semantic slips, wordplay and sophistry.
Iran has perfectly observed neutrality in this matter. Now Ukraine declared it has carried out military aggression against Iran, which entitles Tehran to strike back.
Reuters is ''very very reliable'' as long as it goes parallel to USA and West narratives/propaganda. Reuters is highly professional because it says what goes in line with the idealogy of the USA and the West.
Believe me if someday Reuters turned its views even 90 degrees (not 180 degrees) it will be the most biased and unreliable media platform in the eyes of said world.
Just for example, like democracy is always good as long as it is ''their sort/kind of democracy'' and it becomes evil when it is ''other's sort/kind of democracy''.