Iran’s protests between economic crisis and political contestation
Shafaq News
Iran’s latest wave of protests has unfolded at the intersection of acute economic distress, contested narratives of legitimacy, and heightened regional and international scrutiny. While demonstrations were triggered by the rapid collapse of the national currency and mounting cost-of-living pressures, the state’s response —and the counter-narratives advanced by international actors and rights groups— has turned the unrest into a broader test of governance, credibility, and control.
Iranian officials uniformly frame the protests as a reaction to economic hardship rather than a political revolt. The sharp depreciation of the rial, which slid to record lows on the parallel market, trading at roughly 1.74 million rials per dollar, disrupted commercial activity and eroded purchasing power, particularly in urban markets. Traders and shopkeepers, especially in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar and mobile phone markets, emerged as early participants, protesting currency volatility, import disruptions, and sudden price hikes.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly acknowledged these pressures, describing the fall of the rial as a serious disruption to business and daily life. However, he rejected the idea that the protests reflected systemic political rejection, instead attributing the “unnatural” currency surge to hostile external actions. Within this framing, economic grievances are real and legitimate, but their escalation into unrest is portrayed as engineered rather than organic.
President Masoud Pezeshkian has adopted a more conciliatory tone. Through government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani, he instructed ministries to open channels of dialogue with protesters and urged security forces to avoid force against peaceful demonstrators in an attempt to contain unrest without conceding political ground.
A central feature of official messaging is the strict distinction between peaceful protesters and what authorities label as violent infiltrators. Iranian media and security institutions have highlighted incidents in which police officers and a Basij member, Ali Azizi, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, were killed during clashes. These cases are presented as evidence for the authorities that parts of the protests crossed into armed violence, involving knives, firearms, and attacks on public buildings.
Parliamentary voices echo this narrative. Ebrahim Azizi, head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, argued that “hostile actors sought to exploit economic grievances through external coordination and funding.” He claimed that merchants ultimately distanced themselves from unrest, limiting its spread.
Yet Azizi also issued a notable warning: relative calm should not be mistaken for public satisfaction, criticizing the draft 1405 budget for 2026 for “failing to prioritize livelihoods, healthcare, and security,” implicitly acknowledging that the economic roots of discontent remain unresolved.
Foreign involvement, especially from the United States, features prominently in Tehran’s framing. Iran’s Foreign Ministry accuses Washington of deliberately provoking unrest through rhetoric aligned with “maximum pressure” policies and sanctions. From this perspective, economic protests become a vulnerability exploited by external adversaries rather than an indictment of domestic governance alone.
Armed Forces Commander Amir Hatami said the rapid transformation of demonstrations into unrest did not reflect Iranian society’s awareness, attributing escalation to “hostile planning.” He stressed that economic demands have no connection to foreign leaders.
Washington, however, has inserted itself directly into the narrative. President Donald Trump cautioned that Washington was prepared to intervene militarily if Iranian authorities used lethal force against peaceful demonstrators.
A US State Department spokesperson told Shafaq News that President Donald Trump warned Iran against resorting to lethal force, threatening a strong response if protesters were killed. The spokesperson described the demonstrations as reflecting “understandable anger” over the government’s failure to deliver a better life, language that sharply contrasts with Tehran’s emphasis on foreign manipulation.
One of the most contentious aspects of the unrest is the human toll. Iranian authorities have not released comprehensive nationwide figures for casualties or arrests. Instead, state media such as Fars News Agency and Tasnim News Agency have selectively reported on incidents involving security personnel, emphasizing targeted attacks on the state.
In contrast, the US-based organization Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA) reports a far higher toll: at least 36 deaths, including two police officers, and more than 2,000 arrests. HRANA claims protests occurred in 285 locations across 92 cities in 27 provinces. The group also alleges raids on medical facilities treating wounded protesters and notes that internet restrictions have hampered independent verification.
Reuters cites independent monitors estimating dozens of deaths and thousands of detentions, while noting the absence of official nationwide data. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have not issued protest-specific totals but situate the unrest within a broader pattern of concerns over excessive force and arbitrary detention in Iran’s past protest waves.
At street level, the protests’ character appears fluid. Iranian state media interviews with traders emphasize economic demands —currency stability, price controls, and market predictability— and reject political motives. Some merchants told state outlets that “rioters” intervened in peaceful gatherings, provoking clashes and introducing confrontational slogans.
International reporting paints a more complex picture. Agence France-Presse reports that while economic frustration dominates, some demonstrations have included slogans calling for political change or the overthrow of the ruling system, particularly as protests spread beyond commercial centers.
Most observers agree on the sequence, if not the interpretation: economic shock triggered the protests, but in certain locations, economic anger intersected with deeper political dissatisfaction. Whether this represents a marginal escalation or a potential shift in trajectory remains a point of dispute.
The result is a landscape of parallel narratives. Iranian authorities frame the unrest as a dual challenge: legitimate economic grievances requiring dialogue and policy fixes, alongside organized violence fueled by foreign interference that demands firm security measures. Human rights groups and opposition voices, by contrast, emphasize civilian harm, mass arrests, and political repression, arguing that the scale of detentions reflects a broader crackdown.
What remains clear is that currency instability and declining living standards lie at the heart of the unrest. Less certain is how far economic protests can be insulated from political meaning in a context where trust in institutions is fragile and external pressure is constant. As Iran navigates this moment, the balance it strikes between economic reform, controlled engagement, and coercive enforcement will shape not only the immediate trajectory of the protests but also the durability of the state’s claim that the streets are demanding relief, not regime change.
Read more: Trader protests reshape Iran’s crisis while US signals grow sharper
Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.
