Inflation spikes, basic goods slip out of reach for Iranians, citizens say

The move follows a period of intense pressure on the establishment. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets globally to protest the government following a mass killing of protesters in January.

Tehran, currently facing a severe economic crisis and the rising costs of war, appears to be targeting the financial and legal identities of those it labels as "enemy collaborators."

Pursuing assets across borders

In a significant escalation of rhetoric, the Chief Justice of Ilam Province told the judiciary-linked Mizan news agency on Thursday that officials are examining the legal dimensions of "confiscating the property" of Iranians abroad within their countries of residence.

While the state has already begun identifying and freezing assets within Iran, this official called for international judicial mechanisms to target property held in the West. "Generally, the legal possibility for these actions exists," he said, adding that success would depend on "legal coordination with the country where the assets are located."

This follows a directive from Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, the head of the Judiciary, to accelerate the seizure of property belonging to those linked to "overseas services and subversive networks."

By framing political dissent as "material support for hostility," a cash-strapped Tehran is attempting to create a legal pretext to pursue the private wealth of its citizens globally.

Citizenship as a political tool

In addition to financial threats, some officials are calling for the removal of the most basic legal tie between the state and the diaspora: Iranian citizenship.

Hassanali Akhlaghi Amiri, a member of parliament from Mashhad, said earlier this month that cooperation with "hostile countries" should lead to the revocation of a person's national identity.

"The punishment for cooperating with hostile countries against national security and interests begins with the confiscation of property and may even include the revocation of citizenship," Akhlaghi Amiri said.

• 

  Iran warns it will seize assets of overseas Iranians working against state

• 

  Over a million people rally worldwide in solidarity with Iran protests

• 

  Iran watchdog clears tougher espionage law targeting Israel, US cooperation

The suggestion has sparked a heated debate within Iran. The moderate outlet Rouydad24 argued that the constitution treats citizenship as an absolute right that cannot be taken away.

The outlet warned that treating a national identity as a "revocable privilege" to be traded for political loyalty is a dangerous shift that makes the law a matter of "personal taste."

'Stray' citizens: Deprivation of consular services

While the legal debate over formal revocation continues, many Iranians abroad are already experiencing a de facto loss of citizenship through the denial of consular services.

Maryam Ebrahimvand, an independent filmmaker and activist also known as Maryam Taher, recently said that the Iranian consulate in Paris has repeatedly informed her that her "citizenship has issues." Ebrahimvand said that her identity documents were previously seized and have not been returned.

"For the third time, they verbally told me my citizenship is problematic," Ebrahimvand said in a video message. "When they say my citizenship has a problem, it means I have been stripped of it... I have no passport from any country. I am in a state of statelessness."

A globalized crackdown

The escalation comes as the government faces unprecedented opposition from the diaspora. Since the January massacre, massive rallies in cities across Europe and North America have drawn millions of people, marking the largest Iranian opposition movement in decades.

Authorities in Tehran have also alluded to the stance some members of the diaspora have taken regarding the recent military conflict with the US and Israel.

While the topic is delicate, officials have increasingly used "wartime protocols" to justify harsher punishments for those they accuse of siding with foreign adversaries during a time of crisis.

By threatening to seize assets, withholding consular services, and discussing the formal cancellation of passports, the government is attempting to create a climate of fear for protesters who previously felt safe beyond Iran’s borders.

These measures signal a government that no longer sees its people as citizens with rights, but as assets to be seized or enemies to be erased.

“They are not pragmatists; they are not reformers,” he said, referring to lead negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during his speech at the Haus der Bundespressekonferenz. “Neither are the IRGC killers behind the curtains.”

Pahlavi was in Berlin for meetings with German lawmakers and members of the press as part of a European trip focused on Iran’s political future.

The Iranian prince warned that continued rule by the Islamic Republic would lead to further conflict in the region as the authorities will continue to pose threats to the people, the region, and beyond as long as they remain in power.

“For 47 years, the world has known Iran through the actions of a regime that took a great nation hostage,” Pahlavi said. “No deal will solve this. No negotiations will solve this. It is in their DNA.”

‘Choosing free Iran over a dying regime’

Pahlavi further addressed Europe, saying it faces a choice between the current Iranian system and a free Iran that could become a partner for stability.

“The choice before Europe is not between war and peace. It is between a dying regime that endangers us all and a free Iran that can become a partner for stability,” he said.

The Iranian prince urged European authorities to seek “a new course” in dealing with Tehran, or keep facing “constant blackmail” from the Islamic Republic.

“European governments must stop appeasing this regime. Expel regime ambassadors, refuse to legitimize any arrangements that preserve the IRGC-centered power structure and prepare to recognize the transitional government when it is announced,” he said, addressing European powers.

‘Iranians don’t want to see regime legitimized’

Pahlavi referred to nationwide protests in Iran, saying the Iranian people demand world countries refrain from strengthening or legitimizing a government that terrorizes the nation.

“The Iranian people are not asking us to fight their revolution. They are already doing that, and with a courage that should humble all of us,” he said. “They are asking something far more modest: do not legitimize those who oppress them. Do not strengthen those who terrorize them.”

He said it was time for the world to “catch up with their courage,” noting that the international community’s contribution to their struggle could help bring about an end to the government's violence.

“If you stand with us, if you act in honor of those 40,000 innocent protesters, you will save lives, you will stop the flow of blood,” he said.

Pahlavi also touched upon the Iran war, saying the destruction of governmental infrastructure employed in suppressing dissent, could potentially facilitate protests aimed at subverting the government.

“The air cover campaign that included hitting the regime infrastructure and apparatus of repression was a necessary step to equalize the playing field for the Iranians who were getting massacred on the streets defenseless, by a regime that used military weapons to hit them on the streets,” Pahlavi said.

He argued that a democratic transition in Iran could reduce regional tensions and open the way for broader economic cooperation.

“A free Iran would be a stabilizing anchor for the entire Middle East, ending the proxy wars that have ravaged Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, and becoming a partner for regional economic integration,” Pahlavi said.

The controversy began following a Monday broadcast on the state television, where hardline commentator Mostafa Khoshcheshm asserted that the Iranian people overwhelmingly favor military confrontation over diplomatic efforts to end the war.

“According to polls conducted by academic centers regarding the war, 87% of the people said that once and for all, this decayed tooth should be pulled out,” he said, arguing that reopening the Strait of Hormuz could leave Iran unable to close it again if needed.

No details about such a survey—its methodology, sample size or sponsoring institution—have been published, making the claim impossible to independently verify.

Yet the figure is notable less for its credibility than for what it reveals about a shifting narrative inside Iran.

Early in the conflict, some hardline factions and state-aligned voices attacked members of the Iranian diaspora and others who openly welcomed military pressure on the Islamic Republic or argued that war might weaken the system.

At some rallies and in media commentary, those seen as supporting foreign intervention were portrayed as traitors or collaborators.

Now, some of those same domestic factions are the ones most vehemently opposing negotiations with the United States and calling for the continuation of the war.

The contradiction reflects a more complicated reality.

Many Iranians may initially have supported military escalation—not out of loyalty to the Islamic Republic, but in the belief that war could weaken or even topple the regime.

That is not the kind of support state television appears to be claiming.

Instead, hardliners and state media have pointed to crowds at nightly rallies as evidence of a “majority” favoring war, though critics argue these gatherings represent a narrow and possibly organized segment of society.

At some of these rallies, participants have described the conflict with the United States as “existential” and argued it must continue until the “victory of good over evil.”

Online, many reacted with ridicule.

“When was the last time the opinion of the people of Iran—not the presenters of IRIB—was important and influential in the country’s major decisions?” one reader wrote on the Khabar Online website.

Another user sarcastically noted: “I don't know, maybe your ‘people’ are different from our ‘people.’ Who are these 87%? 87% of government supporters? … Do you even count us as part of the statistics?”

Public skepticism has been further fueled by allegations of digital manipulation by organized “commenting forces,” often referred to as the “Cyber Army.”

Readers have pointed out that while pro-negotiation comments often initially receive the vast majority of “likes,” those numbers are sometimes reversed within hours.

One user wrote: “Unfortunately, within a few hours, the ‘Zombies’ of the cyber army change the scores.”

Whether or not 87% of Iranians support continuing the war, the backlash to the claim suggests the battle over public opinion—and over who gets to define patriotism—may be intensifying alongside the conflict itself.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump suggested renewed talks with Tehran could take place as soon as Friday, though Iranian officials and state media quickly pushed back, saying no official position had yet been announced.

For ordinary Iranians, the diplomatic uncertainty comes atop an economy already battered before the March war.

Domestic news agencies, including the Labor News Agency ILNA, report that more than one million jobs have been lost since the start of the war, while the government is reportedly struggling to meet pension obligations.

ILNA said in recent weeks between three and four million workers, including insured employees as well as informal and uninsured laborers, may have lost their jobs. That would leave 12 to 15 million people with no source of income.

ILNA said the government’s only support for many of those affected by wartime job losses has been a monthly cash subsidy and a food voucher that “barely covers the cost of a single 10-kilogram bag of rice.”

The agency’s Wednesday front page painted a bleak picture: widespread business closures, workers protesting inadequate wages, thousands displaced by US-Israeli strikes still living in hotels, and even a 40% increase in funeral costs.

For many Iranians, economic hardship now feels more immediate than diplomacy.

On Tuesday, Trump claimed on Truth Social that Iran was “collapsing financially” and losing $500 million a day because of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this month Washington would not renew temporary sanctions waivers that had allowed some Iranian and Russian oil already at sea to reach global markets, tightening pressure on energy supplies.

Oil prices rose on Wednesday despite Trump’s ceasefire extension, reflecting market doubts over whether the truce would hold and whether shipping through the Strait would fully resume.

Iranian politicians and media outlets have increasingly highlighted the global economic repercussions of the conflict, a narrative some analysts see as an attempt to increase pressure on Washington.

The reform-leaning Asr Iran wrote this week that although the second round of negotiations remains uncertain, “geopolitical necessities and crushing economic pressures may push both sides toward accepting an emergency agreement.”

On Tuesday night, after Trump announced a continued ceasefire without a formal deal, many Iranians on social media and in messages to Persian-language outlets abroad accused him of abandoning them to hardline commanders in Tehran.

Others argued that economic strain and internal political divisions may ultimately force Iran’s leadership back to the table.

What remains unclear is whether Tehran’s leaders know what they want from the talks—or whether some are still prepared to risk a prolonged war of attrition.

For ordinary Iranians, any notion of “victory” may increasingly depend less on geopolitics than on whether they can endure the economic collapse unfolding around them.

Tens of millions of Iranians have been cut off from the rest of the globe since US-Israeli strikes began on Feb. 28. It has been described as the world’s longest state-imposed internet blackout to date.

Under the new plan, approved by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, selected businesses and institutions would regain global internet access while much of the public remains restricted.

The rollout would begin with commercial card holders and later expand to sectors tied to production, industry and trade, according to officials, who present the measure as economic management.

Critics see something larger: the formalization of a two-tier digital system. Those fears have intensified after leaked material circulated in recent days suggested authorities were considering more permanent restrictions.

Iran International has not independently verified the documents.

‘War as excuse’

Neda Bolourchi, executive director of the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans, said the announcement appears less like an emergency wartime measure than the rollout of a long-prepared policy.

“What we can understand is that this has been a multi-year project,” she told Iran International. “That the war has given it the excuse to roll it out.”

She added that she does not expect a quick return even to the limited internet environment that existed before the latest shutdowns.

But Amin Sabeti, the London-based founder of CERTFA, a cybersecurity lab focused on cyberattacks linked to Iran, questioned whether Tehran could maintain such a model for long.

“They are trying to implement it, but the big question mark for me is how long they can carry on,” he told Iran International. “I don’t think they can continue the next six months as it is.”

Sabeti argued that wartime conditions may allow governments to impose extraordinary restrictions, but Iran is not North Korea and cannot easily be transformed into one.”

‘The Gen Z problem’

The economic consequences are already mounting.

For millions of Iranians, Instagram, Telegram and WhatsApp are not luxuries. They are storefronts, classrooms, advertising platforms and lifelines to clients abroad.

Bolourchi warned that while the model may be sustainable for the state, it could be punishing for ordinary households, many of whom make their living online.

Sabeti noted that this would carry political risks for the ruling elite.

“If you offer it to the Iranian people—internet, Instagram, XYZ—and suddenly you want to take it away, that’s the level of the anger. We will see huge protests,” Sabeti said.

Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute who focuses on Iranian society, Gen Z and social media, said the blackout cannot be separated from the Islamic Republic’s broader information war.

“The reason they are basically not allowing Iranians access to the outside world is because the internet and social media is the only way for their voices to be heard,” Dagres said.

She also stressed that the economic damage has been particularly severe for entrepreneurs, women-led businesses and rural sellers who depend on social media income streams.

Tightening control

The system may also deepen surveillance.

Even if Iran does not become a replica of North Korea, a permission-based internet would still mean more monitoring and greater pressure on citizens to censor themselves.

Dagres argued that the government may be trying to normalize the blackout through small concessions while preserving overall control.

Direct-to-cell technology, which could one day allow ordinary smartphones to connect directly to satellites without dishes or ground terminals, is still not meaningfully available in Iran and remains more promise than practical solution.

For Tehran, “Internet Pro” may solve one immediate problem: how to keep strategic sectors online while limiting the wider public. In doing so, it may create another.

Iran is a country where tens of millions have built livelihoods, relationships and daily routines online. Restricting that access while rewarding approved groups may tighten control today, but deepen resentment tomorrow.