A Jewish woman who says she spent years engaging with senior figures linked to Iran’s ruling establishment has shared what she describes as insider accounts from those interactions in a sit-down interview with Iran International.
Catherine Perez-Shakdam, a French-born Jewish woman, offers a portrait of a political system she says is driven less by confidence than by a fear of collapse.
She says she gained rare access to Iran’s political and ideological circles after presenting herself as a sympathetic Western voice critical of the United States and Israel.
Over time, she says, that posture opened doors to senior officials in Tehran, including the late president Ebrahim Raisi, senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guards and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Perez-Shakdam said her access was neither incidental nor accidental, but carefully cultivated.
“(I wanted) to make myself into somebody that the regime would want to invite, someone that they would see as useful and an asset for them.”
‘Nobody stopped me’
Much of that access, she said, flowed through the late filmmaker and propagandist Nader Talebzadeh, a central figure in Tehran’s state-aligned media and conference circuit.
According to Perez-Shakdam, Talebzadeh’s patronage effectively removed institutional barriers.
“So Nader gave me, you know, the absolute pass in that I had been vetted by him and therefore nobody could touch me,” she said. “Nobody could stop me at the airport. I could do whatever. I mean, whatever.”
That freedom, she said, allowed her to move through Iran in ways rarely permitted to Westerners, even those with journalistic credentials, and offered a window into Tehran’s power politics.
The structure of the Islamic Republic, Perez-Shakdam argues, reflects deep insecurity within the leadership, particularly since repeated waves of mass protest have challenged its legitimacy.
‘They fear the people’
She said that fear was most visible in what she was told about the 2009 Green Movement, when millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Perez-Shakdam said an insider described to her a moment during that unrest when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appeared visibly emotional in public, pointing to footage from the period as the state faced what he described as an existential crisis.
“He told me that it was the day that the regime almost fell,” she said. “That they were so close and that the people did not realize just how close (Khamenei) was from losing everything.”
She said the episode left a lasting psychological imprint on Iran’s leadership.
“They are terrified of the people, which is why you see the repression that you see in the streets,” Perez-Shakdam said.
‘A god among men’
Perez-Shakdam also recalled being brought into the presence of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, describing the encounter as carefully staged to project dominance rather than invite dialogue.
She said Khamenei did most of the talking and appeared intent on asserting intellectual and moral authority.
“I think he just wanted to impress upon me that, you know, he was a god among men.”
One exchange, she said, left a particularly lasting impression.
“The first thing he asked me was whether or not I thought that God was genocidal,” she said. “I looked at him and I was like, no, obviously not.”
She said Khamenei then compared deaths ordered by the state to a natural cycle of life, suggesting that killing in service of the Islamic Republic should not be considered genocide—a comparison she described as deeply disturbing.
Looking at Iran today, Perez-Shakdam argued that fear of popular revolt remains the leadership’s defining trait, particularly when it comes to women. Iranian women, she said, pose the greatest challenge to the system’s ability to control future generations.
Speaking on Thursday during a visit to South Khorasan province, Pezeshkian said that although Iran had launched missiles during the fighting, Israel’s arsenal proved superior in both quantity and capability.
“It is true that we had missiles, but their missiles were more numerous, more powerful, more precise and easier to deploy,” Pezeshkian said.
He added that it was the people who ultimately frustrated Israel, without elaborating.
Pezeshkian rejected calls for Iran to curb its missile program, framing it as essential to national defense.
“They tell us not to have missiles, while they arm Israel to the teeth so it can come here whenever it wants, raze everything and leave,” he said. “I will not accept that.”
US officials have said any talks with Tehran would hinge on sweeping conditions that include Iran ending uranium enrichment and dismantling key parts of its nuclear program, curbing or accepting limits on its missile program, and rolling back support for regional proxy forces.
The missile issue is politically charged in Tehran after the June conflict, in which Israel relied heavily on layered air and missile defenses – alongside US support – to blunt waves of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones, while still suffering some strikes that penetrated defenses.
The report said an expansion of relations in North Africa would strengthen Tehran at a time when it has been weakened by losses to its leadership and regional allies, adding that closer ties would reinforce “the Iranian regime and its so-called Axis of Resistance, now looking for avenues to rebuild its regional standing and power.”
It said Tunisia’s leadership also sees political benefit in closer alignment with Iran, noting that deepening relations would serve President Kais Saied’s agenda by allowing him to “retain legitimacy while continuing his wide-scale crackdown on Tunisia’s institutions,” while reinforcing his anti-West posture.
The analysis said Tunisia could also offer strategic value for Iran beyond economic ties, warning that Tunis “may represent a safe haven for Iran-supported Hamas operatives” if pressure increases on other countries hosting the group’s leadership.
In September, Israeli broadcaster i24 reported that the US and Israel were holding discussions, with indirect involvement from Iran and other states, over a possible plan to relocate senior Hamas leaders from Gaza to Tunisia, citing security sources, though the talks and their scope have not been independently confirmed.
The report said Iran operates “a sophisticated, law-evading mechanism to support its aviation industry,” relying on shell and front companies in countries with limited transparency, including parts of Africa, Southeast Asia and Central Asia, to acquire aircraft and components and transfer them rapidly to avoid detection.
Aircraft are moved through layered ownership structures and “burst activity” transfers before filing flight plans that pass near Iran, allowing planes to enter Iranian airspace and make “fabricated critical malfunction” emergency landings, after which they are absorbed into Iranian fleets, the report said.
It said airlines such as Mahan Air and Qeshm Fars Air function as logistical arms of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, operating under the Quds Force to move weapons, equipment and funds to regional proxy groups, adding that the sector has shifted “from a civilian transportation tool to a core component of the regime’s economic and security strategy.”
The report said sanctions have severely degraded Iran’s civil aviation, with about 60% of passenger aircraft grounded and the average fleet age at around 28 years, forcing airlines to cannibalize planes for spare parts and rely on smuggling networks to remain operational.
It added that the aviation sector illustrates “a sophisticated integration of state, market, and underground networks that operate in regulatory gray zones and disrupt efforts to globally enforce the sanctions,” even after the UN Security Council reimposed sanctions under the snapback mechanism and the US maintained broad restrictions under laws such as IFCA, ISA and CAATSA.
Ahead of International Migrants Day, Iran International asked its audience to submit messages responding to questions about migration: the challenges, opportunities, and lessons it has brought, and whether – if they could go back – they would choose migration again.
Many respondents described leaving Iran not as a free decision but as a reaction to conditions they say have stripped away the possibility of a normal life.
One respondent rejected the term “migration” outright, writing that leaving Iran was “an escape from the prison of the mullahs’ regime” and “the prison of the Islamic Republic government.”
Another, a 51-year-old specialist doctor, said that if he had known how bad conditions would deteriorate and how far the status of doctors would fall, he would “definitely” have considered emigrating.
Some contrasted today’s crises with memories of a more prosperous past, citing Canada as one of the top destinations for Iranians and arguing that “the conditions Canada has today, we had in our country 50 years ago, with every comfort and excellent facilities.”
Others described migration through direct comparisons between life inside and outside Iran, focusing on differences in standards of living, prices, and the quality of goods.
Youth without prospects
Younger voices described a generation stuck between an unlivable economy at home and closed doors abroad, as the rial’s collapse and soaring prices erase prospects for housing, cars, further study, and family life.
One 35-year-old who once studied in Spain but was forced back as the euro jumped from 4,000 to about 130,000 rials said life in Iran has become “hell,” that he suffers severe depression, and that “we young people in Iran no longer have any motivation to continue.”
He said the exchange-rate shock effectively closed the path to migration and spoke of an economic dead end and an inability to buy a home, continue studying, or build a future – an outcome he said led to “severe depression.”
Several respondents said they would migrate “without a second’s hesitation” if they had the money, while others said they were planning to move to the UK or Nordic countries.
Some emphasized that money is central to the decision, saying they cannot afford to migrate even though they want to.
Others, unable to leave, spoke of holding university degrees while working as street vendors and pleaded for their voices to reach the world, saying the youth have been the main victims of the current system – in line with reports of rising anxiety and hopelessness among Iran’s educated middle class.
Among the messages, regret and longing featured prominently.
Several respondents said that if they could return to the past, they would have migrated decades earlier to secure their children’s futures.
One said waiting for “promises” had ended in what he called “valleys of misery.”
Internal migration also appeared in the accounts, with moves from smaller towns to major cities described by some as improving children’s education and quality of life – though others said such moves would only be truly desirable if resources and opportunities were distributed more evenly across the country.
“In 2001, I migrated within the country to a bigger city and, despite the initial difficulties, I am very satisfied. It had a profound impact on my children’s education and other aspects,” one respondent said.
No easy way back
Those who did leave described the shock of adapting to new countries but also the relief of everyday freedoms, like going out with friends without fearing that police or security forces will stop them or harass women over hijab.
Others said migration, while an opportunity for some, was experienced by many as coercion, a forced choice, and an escape from daily crises under the shadow of the Islamic Republic, while for another group it remained an unattainable dream that grows more distant under economic and political pressure.
“I’ve wanted to leave for many years, but from what I’ve heard, many people have died on the way. Going illegally has many troubles, and there’s always the risk of being deported,” another respondent said.
One said that seeing officers mistreat women fuels fantasies of violent revenge, yet concern for family holds them back, another sign of the psychological toll of living under constant pressure.
Some who had migrated described it as a difficult path with no return.
“Migration is not a good thing; it’s a hard experience. As for me, I’m never going back,” one respondent said.
