A child's gas mask and a shoe are seen at a kindergarten in the abandoned city of Prypiat near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, April 4, 2011.
The devastating port blast on Iran’s southern coast has prompted comparisons to the Chernobyl disaster, with some Iranian thinkers seeing echoes of the Soviet Union’s final days in their own country’s unraveling.
Like the explosion at the nuclear power plant in 1986, the deadly blast at Iran’s Bandar Abbas port—reportedly caused by missile fuel stored at a civilian facility—has become a symbol of decay, incompetence, and state secrecy.
Chernobyl ushered in political change and the collapse of Communism. Could this be the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic?
Historical analogies are never perfect, but they are often revealing.
In the late 18th century, both Russia and Iran were backward agrarian societies ruled by monarchs, burdened by inequality, and haunted by their failures to modernize. Russia's army was a formidable force, but the empire still lagged behind Western Europeans in industry and capital accumulation.
By the mid 19th century, leftist and liberal movements had begun to emerge in Russia, aiming to abolish serfdom and challenge autocracy as part of a broader push for modernization. In Iran too, the educated few, often inspired by the west, were beginning to call for fundamental change.
In Russia, this quest culminated in the dual revolutions of 1917. In Iran, it led to the Constitutional Revolution of 1905 which brought Iranians partial representation but little material progress.
That began only with the rise of Reza Shah in 1925.
Reza Shah confronted the clergy and their medieval traditions' hold on Iranian society. He oversaw an extensive program of modernisation that continued under his son and transformed the country in many ways.
But without democratic development and under pressure from leftist and clerical opposition, Iran’s own “October Revolution” came in 1979.
As in Russia, Iran's post-revolutionary regime was anti-West. It was largely backed by pro-Soviet activists—most of whom were soon crushed by the religious camp while some quietly adapted and remained in the system.
Iranian Red Crescent rescuers work following an explosion at the Rajaei port in Bandar Abbas, Iran, April 27, 2025.
The Islamic Republic, like the Soviet Union, sidelined foreign capital, prioritized homegrown militarization, and sustained itself on repression and slogans. After almost half a century, the revolutionary fervor is gone, corruption is rampant, and the economy is wrecked with years of sanctions and mismanagement.
Could it be argued then that the Islamic Republic today stands at a similar crossroads to that of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s? I think not.
Yes, the theocracy is under enormous pressure from the United States and Israel. A clear majority reject the ruling ideology and want out, as evidenced by widespread protests and growing defiance of Islamic restrictions.
But the Soviet Union had reform-minded leadership.
By the 1980s, some Soviet leaders recognized the system’s failure."The only one truly believing in Communism at the time was chief ideologist Mikhail Suslov," the last leader of Armenia’s Communist Party, Karen Demirchian, told this author in 1999.
And at the very top stood Mikhail Gorbachev, who became General Secretary in 1985 and launched the reformist movement of Perestroika and Glasnost.
By contrast, Iran is ruled by an 85-year-old cleric, Ali Khamenei, who is no Gorbachev— and may even have a few lessons to teach Suslov in rigidity. Khamenei's security forces have shown no hesitation in shooting unarmed protesters.
Gorbachev could act because the Soviet Union was run by a monolithic party that controlled the state, the military, and the security services. No party apparatus rules in Iran. Power rests with one man who presides over a web of largely dysfunctional institutions, tied and surviving mainly by their will to repress.
The Soviet Union collapsed not by popular uprising, but with Gorbachev's top-down liberalization. No such campaign would be entertained let alone initiated by the leader of the Islamic Republic.
The explosion in Bandar Abbas may have shocked and angered Iranians, but it was no Chernobyl in scale—and it's unlikely to be a Chernobyl in impact. Khamenei has never been fond of reform. Until he’s gone, any 'Soviet moment' is more of a warning than a turning point.
President Masoud Pezeshkian’s campaigned on transparency, but his administration is presenting inflated and misleading data about Iran’s energy sector in an apparent bid to soothe public dissatisfaction with deepening blackouts.
In recent months, authorities have repeatedly cited sizeable increases in gasoline and natural gas production and some officials have even assured the public that this summer’s looming electricity shortfall will be resolved.
But a confidential document from the Oil Ministry obtained by Iran International shows these claims are not only inaccurate, but the country's energy shortages are in fact accelerating.
Iran currently suffers from year-round energy deficits. During peak demand season, electricity and natural gas shortages climb as high as 25%, while the gasoline shortfall reaches 30%.
With energy development projects stagnating, officials have turned to optimistic public messaging, using spurious statistics to suggest improvement that their own confidential data shows does not exist.
In late 2024, Mohammad-Sadegh Azimifar, CEO of the National Iranian Oil Products Distribution Company, said the country’s daily gasoline output had increased by 10 million liters, and diesel by 13 million liters over the past year.
However, a confidential internal report from the same company shows base gasoline production at Iranian refineries increased by only 1.5 million liters in late 2024 compared to the same period in 2023. Even for the entire year, the growth was just 3.5% or just 3.76 million liters per day.
Diesel output showed similarly modest growth—just 3% or 3.38 million liters per day for the year. Meanwhile, consumption of both fuels jumped by 7.5% in 2024, or 7 million liters per day, further deepening Iran’s fuel deficit.
Despite the absence of any new refineries in recent years, the government has continued to push over 1.5 million low-efficiency domestically manufactured vehicles into the market annually—adding more strain on fuel demand.
In 2024, Iran’s daily base gasoline production was around 101 million liters, while consumption topped 123 million liters.
Gasoline output lags consumption as additive use in fuels rises
Boosting additives
The government’s main strategy for managing this growing gap, according to the Oil Ministry report, has been to dilute refinery-grade gasoline with large volumes of substandard additives.
These additives include various chemical compounds, fuels from petrochemical plants, and the controversial chemical MTBE—a compound banned in many Western countries due to its environmental and health hazards—as well as industrial octane boosters.
While additive use stood at just 5 million liters per day or 6% of total gasoline in 2018, it now exceeds 20 million liters or over 20% of the fuel supply, raising serious concerns about air quality and public health.
The same confidential report also revealed that only one-quarter of gasoline produced in Iranian refineries meets European standards and even within that limited share it is not fully clear whether the fuels truly adhere to required specifications.
Gas production: claims versus reality
The head of South Pars Gas Complex recently announced a 6 billion cubic meter increase in gas fed into the national grid in the last fiscal year, ending on March 20. The South Pars field alone accounts for 73% of Iran’s natural gas supply.
Simultaneously, the CEO of the Iranian Central Oil Fields Company—which provides around 25% of the nation’s gas—said the company boosted production by 10 million cubic meters per day during the autumn and winter, equating to at least 2 billion cubic meters of annual growth.
Based on these statements, Iran should have increased its gas production by at least 8 billion cubic meters last year.
However, international institutions such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF)—of which Iran is a member—have both estimated Iran's gas output growth at only around half that amount.
From 2010 to 2020, Iran enjoyed annual gas production growth rates above 5%. But from 2021 to 2024 the rate has fallen to around 2% on average. The IEA forecasts that in 2025, gas production will rise by just over 1%.
President Masoud Pezeshkian's government has yet to mount a defense to parliamentary motions aiming to impeach two of his ministers following the port blast that killed scores and injured more than a thousand people.
Hardline MPs have initiated a process that may result in Pezeshkian losing his energy minister Abbas Aliabadi and transport minister Farzaneh Sadeq, but the president has yet to enter the fray.
The inaction could be calculated, hoping that the impeachments calm a public angered by the tragic event and the lack of accountability. It could also deflect attention from the state entities involved in the port's operations which would otherwise take most of the heat for the apparent accident.
First to be named in the parliament was Sadeq, one of the very few female ministers in the history of Iran. She was to be held accountable for “oversight and inefficiency,” according to five MPs sponsoring the motion.
Calls to impeach Aliabadi gained traction shortly after. MPs blamed him for power outages that harmed households and industries. Surprisingly, some from the pro-Pezeshkian camp backed the motion.
“When a minister is weak, he must be replaced,” former presidential candidate Mostafa Hashemi Taba was quoted as saying by the moderate daily Arman-e Melli.
Another moderate outlet, Khabar Online, reported that hardliners in Iran's parliament—mainly from the ultraconservative Paydari Party—had been planning to remove both ministers since March, following the ousting of economy minister Abdolnasser Hemmati.
Back then, the administration didn't concede without a fight.
Officials and moderates outlets launched a campaign warning that impeachments would weaken the administration’s legitimacy, some even asserting cryptically that supreme leader Ali Khamenei viewed Pezeshkian's government as the Islamic Republic's last viable option and opposed destabilization.
Hardliners often submit multiple impeachment motions to increase the chances of at least one being approved for parliamentary debate.
Unofficial reports in Iranian media suggest Sadeq may be removed to show the government is responding to public demands.
Those with most power—and more likely to be culpable for the port blast—are expected to remain untouched: the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), for example, or the Mostazafan Foundation, which operates under Khamenei’s office.
The IRGC likely imports weapons materials through the port, which a subsidiary of the foundation operates.
The motion to impeach Sadeq has over forty signatures to date, according to an official tally, which can be read as a sign of things to come as no more than ten is required to set off the proceedings against a minister.
Previous initiatives to impeach Sadeq fell short, according to unofficial reports in Tehran's media, because Pezeshkian had hinted in closed session that she was Khamenei’s preferred candidate.
This time, the only outlet to come out in support of the transport minister is Etemad, whose proprietor Elias Hazrati serves as the government’s public relations chief. The daily has framed the motion as a move against the government.
Pezeshkian or his team are yet to publicly defend the two embattled ministers. It is a rare silence, perhaps signaling their patience until an actual battle in the parliament if and when the impeachment takes place.
The administration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is preparing to disqualify wealthier citizens from the country’s long-running cash handout program to save government funds as economic headwinds mount.
The program has persisted, with various reforms, for 15 years despite being blamed for distorting the economy and stoking inflation.
Now, Pezeshkian’s government is poised to introduce its own changes to ease the strain on a budget hollowed out by years of sanctions and economic mismanagement.
The proposed exclusion of wealthier households signals a shift towards a more needs-based support system as Iran grapples with persistent economic challenges.
About 30 percent of Iranians live below the poverty line. By removing roughly 18 million recipients from the program, the government aims to reduce fiscal pressure and redirect funds toward low- and middle-income families hardest hit by years of 30-40 percent annual inflation.
In the current fiscal year Pezeshkian’s government has allocated 3,240 trillion rials or about $4 billion at the current open market exchange rate, for cash subsidies.
The figure is separate from the extensive indirect subsidies provided to keep prices of fuel, electricity, water, essential foods, and medicine low.
Since the introduction of the latest subsidy reforms by former president Ebrahim Raisi's administration in May 2022, the rial has devalued by around 185 percent, from 280,000 to approximately 800,000 rials per US dollar as of April 27, 2025.
Consequently, the real value of monthly cash payments has fallen dramatically, now worth just about $3.74 to $5 per person for target groups.
Origins of Iran's cash subsidy program
The cash subsidy system began in 2010 under the populist government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, building on a controversial proposal made by his reformist opponent Mehdi Karroubi during the disputed 2009 presidential election.
Karroubi had promised a universal cash payment of 500,000 rials (around $50 at the open market exchange rates at the time) per person without a clear funding plan, drawing sharp criticism over its potential inflationary effects.
Ahmadinejad’s administration launched the Targeted Subsidy Reform Plan in late 2010, paying 450,500 rials (about $40) monthly to each citizen.
Funded by cuts to energy and utility subsidies, the program initially boosted Ahmadinejad’s popularity but quickly lost value as inflation and currency devaluation took hold. By August 2013, the real value of the handout had dropped to about $15 per person.
Rouhani’s response: the livelihood subsidy
Hassan Rouhani’s moderate administration (2013–2021) attempted several times to remove higher-income households from the universal program, but efforts faltered due to the absence of a transparent tax database.
As economic pressures mounted, the government introduced an additional "livelihood subsidy" in late 2019 after a sharp increase in fuel prices triggered widespread unrest.
This new subsidy targeted lower-income groups, offering payments based on household size to about 60 million Iranians.
Single-member households received 550,000 rials per month (just over $4 at the time), with smaller amounts paid per person to members of larger families.
Raisi’s changes: new tiers and e-vouchers
Facing deepening economic challenges, Ebrahim Raisi’s hardline government restructured the cash subsidy system in May 2022.
Monthly payments to the highest-income 10 percent of the population were eliminated, while remaining recipients were divided into two groups: the poorest 30 percent received 4 million rials (around $14) monthly, and the middle 60 percent received 3 million rials (about $11).
To further curb inflationary pressures, in February 2023 Raisi’s administration introduced a voluntary scheme allowing families to receive their subsidies as store credit instead of cash.
Participants could use their credits to purchase a list of 11 subsidized essential food items such as rice, cooking oil and dairy products from designated stores.
The three Iranian newspapers closest to the heart of power have adopted a maverick stance against talks with Washington, signaling that the theocracy's most powerful institutions remain deeply skeptical of diplomacy with their arch-nemesis.
While the Culture Ministry, the Supreme Council of National Security and the Press Supervisory Board issue ad hoc directives to newspaper editors about what to publish, three newspapers consistently defy those and often escape with a gentle caution.
They are Kayhan, Javan and Vatan-e Emrooz, linked respectively to the Supreme Leader’s office, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the ultraconservative Paydari Party, all of which continue to criticize the negotiations with the United States – in apparent disregard of the highest office of the realm.
Earlier this week, Kayhan, known for its staunch anti-Americanism, attacked those who back talks with Washington, accusing them of turning a blind eye on the harm done to Iran by US sanctions.
"Why should we trust Trump, a man even his allies do not trust," the paper asked, using some unusually provocative language to describe Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Ultraconservative daily Vatan-e Emrooz also cautioned in its editorial against advancing the talks in a way that would make withdrawal or retreat from any agreement impossible.
The negotiating team should be wary of leaving Iran vulnerable to exploitation, the editorial warned.
The admonitions and the critiques may not be as harsh as they were a couple of weeks ago – prior to Khamenei’s cryptic backing of negotiations. But the very fact that they keep flowing after the leader’s blessing of diplomacy is significant.
"Speaking without restraint at times ... our unnecessary objections, our lack of patience, and our flawed analyses of situations can have historical consequences,” Khamenei cautioned last week with no direct reference to the ongoing negotiations.
“Therefore, we must be very careful," he said. But the trio appear to have not received the memo. Or maybe they have.
The three dailies not only represent powerful factions within the Islamic Republic’s polity, but they also enjoy direct access–with varying degrees–to Khamenei’s office.
It may be easier, therefore, to explain their editorials as necessary objections, contingencies for a potential policy shift should the interests of the leadership require one.
No surprise, perhaps, that IRGC-linked Javan, the daily closest to and representing actual power, has shown the most balanced approach to the negotiations in recent weeks.
"Iran may wish to maintain its image as an anti-imperialist warrior. But who says an agreement limited to eliminating sanctions against reducing enrichment levels will tarnish that image,” Javan asked in an editorial this week.
"We have done this before. Why shouldn't we do it again...? No country in the world will characterize this as Iran relinquishing its ideals."
Unlike other outlets in Iran, which face severe consequences for minor errors, these three dailies roam carefree on the theocracy’s political plane. Whether or not their tone is part of a grand strategy by the topmost officialdom remains unknown.
"Some say that Trump is unpredictable,” Javan concluded its editorial. “Well, we are not that predictable either!"
Dozens of women in Tehran and Shiraz have reported receiving personalized text messages in recent days from Iran's Headquarters for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice warning them about hijab violations.
What began as a pilot surveillance project in the conservative city of Isfahan is now quietly extending its reach to the Iranian capital.
The emergence of these messages in Tehran and Shiraz has triggered widespread concern that Iran’s hardline factions are laying the groundwork for a high-tech nationwide surveillance system to enforce mandatory hijab laws.
“I was visiting my father’s grave in the early hours of the morning when I received the warning,” wrote one woman posting under the handle @jesuisminaaa on X. “I sat there, crying and crushed. Someone there had reported me. How can a person think only about my headscarf in a place filled with grief?”
The message she and others received is stark: remove your hijab in public, and you may face legal action.
From cars to the streets
Since 2023, Iran’s police have used traffic cameras to detect unveiled women in cars. Registered vehicle owners receive automated warnings. If three warnings are logged, the car is impounded for up to four weeks. Tens of thousands of cars have been seized under the measure.
Many male owners report that no women—veiled or unveiled—were in their cars on the dates cited in the warning messages. Some female drivers also say they were not using their vehicles at the time the alleged violations occurred.
According to multiple experts and reports on social media, the institution is now identifying individuals by cross-referencing surveillance footage with mobile phone geolocation data, smart card usage including subway and bank cards as well as government identity databases.
The result: personalized messages delivered to women’s phones within hours of their appearances in public spaces.
Legal and ethical questions
The scale and precision of the operation have provoked an outcry from legal experts, activists and ordinary citizens.
“Law experts, please answer this: does the Headquarters for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice even have legal access to people’s personal data?” wrote Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, a reformist former government spokesman and law professor on X. “Let the country be in peace!”
The head of the powerful, hardline institution is appointed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and appears to operate independently of the government.
Both the Minister of Telecommunications, Sattar Hashemi, and government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani have denied the administration’s involvement or authorization for the expanded surveillance.
“It has been proven that the use of force in the realms of culture and society leads to counterproductive results. In the field of education, police and judicial measures have not been effective and will not be,” the president’s deputy chief of staff for communications said in a post on X.
“Blaming the administration and the president for the costs of repeating failed experiences is both inaccurate and unethical,” Mehdi Tabatabai added.
But critics argue that even if the government, parliament and the judiciary have no direct control and are not formally endorsing the measures, they are doing little to intervene.