Firsthand reports from contributors inside Iran
On Sanaei Street in central Tehran, young people spill onto pavements and crowd around tiny tables late into the evening, smoking and laughing as if the war never happened.
The street has become a kind of world within a world, a haven where people briefly lose sight of what is happening outside.
At times it almost feels normal—with one tiny but crucial difference: fewer phones are out. There is no internet to warrant the persistent scrolling.
The music is low. The coffees are overpriced. Couples flirt. Groups of teenagers debate politics and migration plans over cheesecake and iced americanos as if the country around them were not still carrying the shock of war.
But the conversations are different now.
“We thought it would be over in a few days,” says Mani, 17, referring to the January protests that were brutally crushed. “It wasn’t.”
He says he was on the streets with many of his school friends but would think twice if there were another call to action.
“If the US and Israel couldn’t get rid of them, no one can,” Mani says. “I don’t think I’d go out again. I’ll leave Iran as soon as I can.”
That appeared to be the dominant mood among the Gen Zs I met in one cafe this week. One was my best friend’s daughter. The others were her friends.
Their worldview is hard to grasp and harder to explain. The best phrase I can find for it is “suspended expectation”: a belief that the Islamic Republic may eventually fall, paired with almost no confidence that they themselves can bring it down.
The January massacre and the war that followed appear to have fundamentally altered how many young opponents of the system think about change.
“I still like the Prince,” says Saba, another 17-year-old, referring to Iran’s most prominent opposition figure, Reza Pahlavi. “I think he’s a decent man. But I don’t think he can beat this seven-headed dragon.”
The contempt for Iran’s ruling elite is unmistakable. It may be the closest thing to a shared political feeling in the cafe.
Saba and her friends describe moments of fear during the bombings, but also flashes of exhilaration after reports that senior officials had been killed.
“We partied hard when Khamenei was killed,” says Tannaz, 19. “We danced through the night wearing headphones so no music could be heard from outside the apartment.”
Tannaz says she protested too and saw a friend badly injured with pellets. The crackdown, she says, “shattered” her emotionally.
“After January 10, I couldn’t get out of bed for days,” she says. “Then there was a ray of hope when Khamenei was killed. But not anymore. I really don’t know what’s going to happen to Iran. I’m trying to take it day by day until I can leave.”
That last sentiment may be the most common political position among parts of Tehran’s urban youth today: not revolution, not reform, but exit.
The war does not appear to have softened hostility toward the ruling system among these circles. If anything, it deepened it. But it also reinforced a conclusion many seem to have reached after January: that the state is far harsher and more durable than they once believed.
So they “chill,” as Mani puts it with a laugh. “What else can one do?”
They are still hanging out when I leave—no doubt drifting from politics to names and trends non-Gen Zs would struggle to decipher.
Tehran has regained its noise after the war. But beneath it sits a generation that no longer seems to believe history belongs to them.
Trump said there was “never a deadline” for negotiations and suggested an agreement could still emerge before his planned trip to China next week, while also keeping open the possibility of renewed strikes.
His remarks followed an Axios report saying the White House believes a one-page memorandum to end the war may be within reach and could create a framework for broader nuclear talks within 30 days.
The reaction from Iranians inside and outside the country exposed deep divisions over diplomacy, military pressure and expectations surrounding Trump’s approach toward the Islamic Republic.
Comments show fatigue and distrust
Many people writing or speaking to Iran International described emotional exhaustion after months of war, economic pressure and shifting rhetoric from Washington.
“Mr. Trump, either fight like a man or leave us alone. You’ve exhausted us,” one person from Arak wrote.
Another questioned why discussions that could shape Iran’s future appeared to be taking place privately.
“If the fate of the Iranian people is being decided through this agreement, why is it happening behind closed doors?” the sender wrote. “People have the right to know what concessions are being exchanged.”
A citizen from Shiraz described the current moment as existential for many Iranians.
“The nation has endured years of sanctions and pressure and paid the price in blood like a war,” the comment read. “Every single day of delay is a matter of life and death.”
Others focused on the humanitarian and psychological toll of the conflict.
“Trump said help was on the way, but not only did no help come, the attacks led to two months of internet shutdowns,” one person wrote. “People suffered, people were killed and we became poorer.”
Another from Mashhad urged Iranians to rely on each other rather than foreign powers or the government.
“In this situation, neither the government nor America is thinking about the people,” the message said. “We Iranians should look after each other.”
Some appealed directly to opposition figures abroad.
One from Tehran called on exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi to speak with Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “so people do not lose hope.”
Others argued the confrontation remained unresolved regardless of diplomacy or ceasefire efforts.
“This battle is not over and it continues,” one person wrote. “Whether there is war, ceasefire or negotiations, the conflict still continues.”
‘Iranians lack representation in talks’
Asieh Amini, a Norway-based social affairs analyst speaking to Iran International, said assessing public opinion inside Iran has become increasingly difficult because internet restrictions and censorship have narrowed the available space for measuring sentiment.
“When we talk about the reaction of the Iranian people, naturally we should rely on polling or evidence,” Amini said. “Unfortunately because of internet shutdowns, even the virtual space that could provide a relative statistical picture no longer exists.”
Amini argued that Iran is simultaneously experiencing two separate conflicts: one between the Islamic Republic and foreign powers, and another between the Iranian state and its own citizens.
“One side has a loud voice in international media – those opposing war and criticizing Trump and Netanyahu,” Amini said. “But the second conflict, which many believe is the main war inside Iran, has no representative in these negotiations.”
Amini described that internal struggle as a long-running confrontation marked by executions, repression, internet shutdowns and economic pressure.
“The main victims are defenseless Iranian people,” Amini said, adding that many Iranians now feel excluded from decisions that could shape their future.
Discussing the possible domestic impact of any agreement, Amini said economic hardship has overtaken nearly every other public concern inside Iran.
“The issue is no longer simply poverty,” she said. “Many people’s incomes have reached zero or below zero. People are surviving off savings if they have any left.”
Amini said many Iranians who once hoped for stronger international intervention have become increasingly disillusioned.
“Despair is the first thing reflected back from society,” she said. “People feel abandoned.”
Users accuse Trump of inconsistency
Posts circulating on X reflected a broader and often harsher backlash, with many accusing Trump of worsening conditions inside Iran without producing meaningful political change.
One widely shared post listed what the writer described as the results of Trump’s “half-finished war”: internet blackouts, inflation, unemployment, declining incomes, poverty, intensified repression, executions and worsening mental health conditions.
Another user wrote that hearing phrases such as “agreement,” “negotiations” and “we’ll see what happens” now caused disgust after months of uncertainty.
Some posts argued Trump had weakened US credibility by alternating between military threats and diplomacy.
“Trump destroyed the reputation and military credibility of America as a superpower,” one user wrote.
Another accused Washington of trapping “90 million people between sanctions and clerics” after withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal only to pursue negotiations again years later.
Several users dismissed the latest reports of possible diplomacy as unrealistic given the scale of disagreements between Washington and Tehran.
One post summarized what it described as Washington’s demands – ending enrichment, dismantling nuclear facilities and transferring enriched uranium abroad – before concluding that the Islamic Republic would never accept such terms.
“If you think these two sides will reach an agreement, then maybe I’m the one who thinks differently,” the post read.
Others suggested the latest reports were intended mainly to stabilize markets and calm fears of renewed conflict.
“The whole Axios story looks like a game to control the markets,” one wrote.
‘Washington balancing pressure, diplomacy’
Amir Hamidi, a national security specialist speaking to Iran International, said Trump’s latest comments appeared aimed at maintaining pressure on Tehran while leaving room for diplomacy.
“Recent remarks by President Trump about giving the Islamic Republic a final opportunity reflect a calculated strategy by the United States,” Hamidi said. “A strategy that preserves maximum pressure while keeping the final diplomatic path open.”
Hamidi said Washington was attempting to present itself as avoiding war while pressuring Tehran politically, economically and diplomatically.
“The message from Washington is clear,” Hamidi said. “There is still a path for negotiations and preventing crisis, but this opportunity cannot be unlimited.”
According to Hamidi, Trump is also seeking to frame the United States as responding to regional instability rather than initiating conflict.
“The United States wants to show that it is not the side starting wars,” he said, adding that Washington’s stated objective remains changing what it sees as destabilizing regional behavior by Tehran.
Netanyahu praised
A large number of posts contrasted Trump with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was often portrayed as more committed to confronting the Islamic Republic militarily.
“Finish the job, Bibi,” several users wrote in English and Persian.
One argued Trump “can never match Bibi,” while another said Israel appeared more determined than Washington to maintain pressure on Tehran.
“The goal of Israel is the destruction of the Islamic Republic,” one post read. “That’s why they stay calm despite America’s mixed signals.”
Some argued any agreement that preserves the current political system in Iran would ultimately fail and damage US deterrence globally.
“If America gives concessions to the Islamic Republic and leaves, then Washington must say goodbye to its deterrence,” one person wrote.
Another argued Tehran would eventually resume efforts toward nuclear weapons capability if it survives the current confrontation intact.
“Immediately after surviving this war, the regime will go toward the atomic bomb,” the user wrote.
Calls for restraint compete with despair
Not all reactions condemned Trump outright. Some users argued Washington’s softer rhetoric may reflect tactical calculations rather than retreat.
“One should not panic or insult Trump for now,” one post said, arguing the administration’s priority appeared to be securing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.
Another urged people to avoid emotional swings driven by daily headlines.
“We should not judge too quickly or expect too much,” the user wrote.
“We do not know how we can go on with these prices. Yesterday I bought two sausages. It cost 1 million rials,” one viewer told Iran International, an amount equal to about 60 cents.
The strain is deepening as Iran’s minimum wage has fallen below $90 and the rial continues to lose value, hitting a new low this week.
Another message said workers at a glass factory had still not received their March wages and that supplementary insurance had been cut.
Several citizens linked the deterioration to factory closures after the ceasefire, shortages of raw materials and rising rents.
“Since the ceasefire, most factories have shut down, especially in industrial estates. Everyone has become unemployed because of shortages of raw materials. Daily goods have become more expensive, deposits and rents have gone up, and medical and drug costs have soared,” one message said.
Service platforms absorb jobseekers
Shargh daily reported that new registrations on the home-services platform Achareh rose sharply in late April compared with the same period last year, especially in lower-barrier work such as cleaning and catering.
Registrations for cleaning and catering rose 239 percent from April 21 to May 2, while electrical work rose 220 percent, plumbing 176 percent, cooling services 150 percent, and building maintenance 140 percent, according to figures provided to Shargh.
Bahman Emam, the platform’s chief executive and co-founder, told Shargh that overall job registrations had risen 30 percent.
“We witnessed widespread layoffs this year, and it seems a significant share of applicants are seeking a first job,” Emam said.
Shargh also reported that some workers who had left the platform for traditional markets were seeking to return, while others who could no longer afford life in Tehran asked to activate their profiles in other cities.
Experts warn shock may endure
Ashkan Nezamabadi, an economic journalist in Berlin, told Iran International that Iran’s labor market had entered a dangerous phase.
“Only one of the two main job platforms in Iran announced a few days ago that it had 318,000 new job applications in one day, which was a new record,” Nezamabadi said.
He said new job opportunities had fallen by about 80 percent, while economic losses and internet disruptions added to the strain.
“These changes clearly show something is breaking in the labor market,” he said.
Government plans to issue loans worth 220 million rials (around $120) per worker were unlikely to prevent layoffs or create durable jobs, according to Nezamabadi.
He said assistance would be more effective if directed toward consumers to preserve demand, contrasting it with pandemic-era support programs in Europe and the United States.
Wages fall below subsistence costs
Iran’s Labor News Agency (ILNA) reported that the cost of a basic household livelihood basket had reached 713 million rials (about $385), up from 450 million rials (about $240) used in wage talks earlier this year.
Faramarz Tofighi, a labor activist who calculates livelihood costs, told ILNA that even the earlier estimate was not realistic and that wages did not reach 60 percent of it.
“That same unrealistic 450 million rial basket has today reached 713 million rials,” Tofighi said.
ILNA said the minimum wage including benefits had fallen to about $88 after the rial’s decline, leaving workers unable to cover rent and food.
Workers cited in the report said they were struggling to buy even bread and eggs, with meat and rice removed from many household shopping lists.
Political fallout grows
Milad Rasaei-Manesh, a political activist based in Stockholm, linked the downturn to broader structural issues.
“Today the economy is effectively destroyed, and the war and policies pursued have led to widespread unemployment and deeper poverty,” Rasaei-Manesh told Iran International.
He said internet restrictions had compounded the crisis by cutting off income sources.
“Internet shutdowns have directly caused job losses and pushed more people into poverty,” he said.
He said economic pressures could drive coordinated protest action. "If workers organize through strikes and collective action, they can accelerate change,” he added.
The mounting evidence points to a labor market squeezed from both ends: more people seeking work, and fewer households able to pay for services.
