Rising psychotherapy fees push Iranians out of treatment – report

According to the experts, which include Mai Sato, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, Goli Kouhkan was forced into marriage at the age of 12 to her cousin and endured years of physical and psychological abuse while working as a farm laborer.

Kouhkan gave birth at home at 13 without medical care. Attempts to escape the marriage failed because of her undocumented status a Baloch minority and societal pressure, the experts said.

In May 2018, her husband beat both her and their five-year-old son. After a relative was called to help, a confrontation ensued that resulted in her husband’s death, according to the experts.

"Iranian courts failed to consider the sustained pattern of abuse or assess specific circumstances surrounding her actions," the experts said in their statement.

They added that during interrogation, Kouhkan, an illiterate woman with no legal representation, was pressured into a confession that formed the basis of her death sentence.

“Goli Kouhkan is a survivor of domestic violence and a victim of the justice system,” the experts said.

“Her execution would represent a profound injustice. The State would be killing a woman who endured years of gender-based violence while defending herself and her child,” they added.

The husband's family agreed to forgo execution only if she pays 100 billion rials (USD 85,000) in blood money, “an amount considerably higher than the recommended rate and far beyond her reach, especially as an undocumented woman who has been rejected by her family,” the experts said.

“This is a woman who was sold into marriage as a child, brutalized for years, and then abandoned by her family and the justice system,” the experts said. “Her case starkly illustrates how gender discrimination and ethnic marginalization intersect to create profound injustice.”

The experts said at least 241 women were executed between 2010 and 2024, including 114 sentenced to death for homicide, many of whom had allegedly killed a husband or intimate partner after years of domestic violence or child marriage.

In Iran, the legal marriage age for girls is 13, and even younger with a guardian’s and judge’s approval. Rights groups say girls and women have little protection from domestic violence, and women face major obstacles when trying to divorce.

The previous $10,000 reporting threshold has been eliminated in favor of a zero-dollar threshold for any financial transaction to or from Iran.

Ottawa tightened the rules after the international anti-money laundering body the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) again warned that Iran remains a high-risk jurisdiction for terrorism financing and sanctions evasion.

Canada says the new rules target funds that originate in Iran and may involve individuals, organizations or networks linked to the Islamic Republic using small transfers to evade sanctions or obscure the true source of money.

But because these transactions often resemble ordinary remittances, the government has argued, the measures now apply to anyone receiving money from Iran, even for legitimate reasons.

“There is a risk that the Islamic Republic of Iran may be facilitating sanctions evasion, which the Minister is of the opinion could have an adverse impact on the integrity of the Canadian financial system or the reputational risk to that system," Canada’s Finance Minister wrote in a statement.

Canada is home to one of the largest Iranian diaspora communities in the world — nearly 300,000 people — and many depend on incoming transfers from Iran, ranging from the sale of land or property and inheritance payments to financial support that parents send to their children studying at Canadian universities.

Remittances from professionals in Canada to loved ones in Iran are also widespread.

FINTRAC, or Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, is the independent federal agency reporting to the Ministry of Finance which is overseeing the rule change.

“With the changes, all businesses subject to the Act are required to report every financial transaction to or from Iran regardless of its amount,” a spokesperson for FINTRAC wrote to Iran International.

“Prior to this update," she added, "the Ministerial Directive only required banks, credit unions, foreign banks and money services businesses to report every financial transaction to or from Iran.”

'Uniquely challenging'

But experts warn that while the directive may make it harder for Islamic Republic-linked actors to move money, it may also create unintended consequences.

Investigative journalist Sam Cooper, one of Canada’s leading reporters on transnational crime, said Iran-linked transactions were particularly hard to detect.

“The regime and its proxies already operate through deep, global underground banking networks," said Cooper, author of Willful Blindness, a book on money laundering networks operating through Canada. "They work with transnational crime groups — from Hezbollah to Latin American cartels and their partners in places like Venezuela.”

Cooper added that tougher reporting rules often fall hardest on ordinary Iranians trying to send money through legitimate channels.

“They often hit ordinary Iranians who refuse to use those underground networks and end up locked out of legitimate banking instead. That can unintentionally strengthen Iranian, Chinese and Mexican criminal networks, which step in to provide ‘services’ that formal banks can no longer offer,” he said.

Canada shuttered its embassy and cut diplomatic ties with Iran in 2012 over what it called security concerns for its diplomats and Iran’s alleged support for terrorism and human-rights abuses.

The move is also being closely watched by those involved in shaping Canada’s sanctions policy. Brandon Silver, an international human rights lawyer has provided expert testimony before Parliament, welcomed the strengthened guidance which many in the sanctions community have long pushed for.

“This FINTRAC guidance on Iran is a reflection of the Islamic Republic’s culture of corruption and criminality,” Silver told Iran International.

“These funds are used to finance mass domestic repression and external aggression — whether it is the murder and maiming of Iranian women’s rights leaders, or the transnational repression targeting Canadians," he said, adding that he hoped other countries in the G7 grouping of wealthy democracies would impose their own curbs.

The announcement came after an Afghan national opened fire on West Virginia National Guard on the day before Thanksgiving last week, killing Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and severely injuring Andrew Wolfe, 24.

“This feels like a form of collective punishment because there was one sole shooter who is not reflective of a broader community of Afghans,” international human rights lawyer Gissou Nia told Iran International.

“It also feels like a move to ban legal immigration completely from certain countries that the Trump administration does not want to see any immigrants from.”

The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, arrived in the United States in 2021 under a program that granted protections to Afghan partner forces following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Lakanwal sought asylum in 2024 and was granted it in April under the Trump administration according to sources familiar with the matter cited by ABC News.

The administration has so far provided few details about how the re-evaluation would work beyond public statements from US President Donald Trump and senior immigration officials.

Trump, whose political comeback last year depended heavily on his pledge to halt illegal immigration and carry out mass deportations, said he would “permanently pause migration from all third world countries”.

But a lack of clarity has created deep uncertainty for thousands of legal permanent residents — including Iranians, dual nationals and residents of third countries — who wonder whether they will be affected.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an Iran International request for comment.

Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security wrote on X after meeting with Trump on Monday: “I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies ... We don’t want them. Not one.”

Supporters of the administration’s move are also speaking out publicly.

Stephen Miller, former White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor, pushed back against Democratic criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration measures, arguing that critics oppose any limits on immigration.

“The Democrat Party is organized around one essential command: No limit of any kind can be placed on the entry of third-world migrants. The failed states of the world must be allowed to empty themselves out into America. And you must pay for their every need, forever,” Miller wrote.

'Political tokens'

Iranian-American organizations say the decision jeopardizes legal commitments made to people who have already undergone years of vetting.

Ali Rahnama of the Iranian American Lawyers Defense Fund (IALDF) said the move threatens fundamental principles of fairness and rule of law.

“Green cards are not political tokens. They are the foundation of family reunions, economic growth and America’s future. They are earned after an elaborate and detailed process,” he told Iran International.

National security analysts caution that the government’s response seeing complex geopolitical dynamics through the prism of a single tragedy.

Dr. Eric Mandel, director of the Middle East Political Information Network (MEPIN) said the administration’s decision must be understood in the broader context of America’s ongoing effort to secure its borders.

He said the United States still needs strict screening to keep out real threats but warned "those escaping the (Iranian) regime’s Shiite jihadists are often the very Iranians most inclined to stand with the United States. Instead of punishing them, US policy should champion the Iranian people and signal unequivocally that America supports their pursuit of democratic change.”

Iran specialist Behnam Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) said the review could unfairly ensnare Iranians who underwent years of rigorous screening.

“There’s an old Persian saying that goes, ‘a fool throws a stone into a well, and a thousand wise men can’t get it out.’ This best describes the situation facing Iranian green card holders following the shooting,” he said.

“It was already hard enough for Iranians to come to America, especially after the travel ban. Iran has one of the highest brain drain rates in the region."

Sense of blame

Among Afghans, the shooting has triggered not only grief but fear of collective blame. A community member who attended a candlelight vigil outside the White House on Sunday for the two National Guard victims said she is overcome with grief.

"They (the Afghan community) expressed deep sympathy for the victims and called for the strongest punishment for the perpetrator," she said.

The community member who also lived in Iran, who asked to remain anonymous for her safety, said fellow Afghans worry they would now be blamed.

“Afghans have been US partners for two decades," she said," and one person’s crime should not define millions.”

“Iraq has been a much different place since we hit them with those B-2 bombers and knocked out and obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability," Trump told reporters at a cabinet meeting in the White House.

“Iran has gone down many, many steps … they’re really not the bully of the Middle East anymore,” Trump said. "I will tell you, Iraq has been a much friendlier place. They talk to us."

He was responding to a question from an Iraqi Kurdish journalist about a rocket attack on Thursday at Khor Mor gas field in the region which halted production for four days. No casualties were reported in the attack, which local officials blamed on Iran-backed militias.

The United States launched surprise strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, in attacks Trump has repeatedly said "obliterated" Tehran's capabilities.

"I saved a lot of lives," Trump continued, "Iraq nominated us for the Nobel Prize, and that was great honor. We didn't expect that from Iraq. Iraq has been a much different place since the taking out of Iran, the nuclear capability.”

Emerging from years of civil war which followed a US invasion in 2003, Baghdad is caught between the competing influence of Tehran and Washington.

US envoy to Iraq Mark Savaya condemned the gas field attack as the work of “armed groups operating illegally and driven by hostile foreign agendas.”

Kurdish authorities have frequently accused armed groups aligned with Tehran of targeting energy infrastructure to pressure the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and undermine US-linked projects.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani condemned the attack as “an assault on all of Iraq” and said a joint investigation with Kurdish authorities would be launched.

The controversy erupted after a recent update on social media platform X rendered the location from which users operated visible.

Those whose location was listed as Iran and not a third country, scrambled by a VPN, appeared to have unfettered access.

In Iran, the new feature exposed that thousands of officials, lawmakers, political activists, journalist and even some pro-government artists, had uncensored internet—even during full national shutdowns.

Critics describe internet in Iran as “tiered," with a hierarchy of favored voices given greater freedom via so-called “white SIMs”, or government issued phone cards with carte blanche to navigate the internet.

'Distrust, discrimination'

Communication researcher Saeed Arkanzadeh-Yazdi told the Shafaqna news outlet that the revelations have generated “an unprecedented wave of collective anger,” clearly visible in the online backlash.

“The distrust toward politicians and activists, and the resentment over the discrimination ... is far greater than what we see on social media,” he said, singling out journalists, whose standing in the public eye, he said, was deeply harmed by the affair.

Some journalists defended the use of the privileged SIM cards while condemning limitations imposed on the public.

Reformist columnist Abbas Abdi—a long-time opponent of internet filtering—said he had openly acknowledged his access years ago. But in an article in Etemad daily, he argued that the benefit itself had been misunderstood.

“In fact, this was not a privilege for journalists," Abdi wrote. "They exempted journalists from a punishment from which everyone should have been exempt … If the exemption required some kind of commitment, then the act should be condemned.”

'Soft-war fighters'

Some with White SIMs were even more direct in defending their privilege.

“Unfiltered internet is not a personal privilege," hardline commentator Abdollah Ganji posted on X. "It is a decision by past and present governments to equip the fighters of the soft war.”

Just as the government is obliged to strengthen the armed forces, he wrote, “for example by helping to develop the Revolutionary Guard's missile program," it must also equip “the frontline warriors of the soft, cognitive and hybrid war."

More backlash

Reformist media figure Isa Saharkhiz rebuked Abdi’s defense in a post on Telegram, asking whether journalists should have chosen solidarity with the public.

“Could the correct, principled and law-abiding behavior not have been to self-sanction until the majority of society was freed from these restrictions?” he wrote.

Political activist Zeinab Zaman wrote on X: “Friends with white SIM cards: if X hadn’t introduced this feature, you would have continued silently. Any explanation now only worsens your image. You accepted this discrimination in silence.”

Journalist Mohammad Raei-Fard called the privileged SIM cards “an insult to the people,” in a post on X, arguing the government had turned internet access into yet another class privilege.

Apologies under pressure

Public backlash has pushed some journalists to apologize.

Reporter Somaye Baghi expressed remorse and promised to request that her access be revoked. She revealed that her SIM was unfiltered “a few weeks after the 12-Day War,” but said she now sees the ethical dimension more clearly.

“I benefited from an unequal privilege. I viewed it as a tool for journalism, but now I know it is also a moral issue,” she posted on X.

Baghi stressed that although she neither requested nor gained access through political connections, she had accepted it. “In Iran’s non-transparent system, any special access becomes questionable — and such criticism is legitimate.”