More Stories
Tehran's decision to form a committee to investigate violence during January protests has been met with widespread skepticism, including from some moderate voice inside Iran who say only an independent investigation can establish credibility.
The administration of President Masoud Pezeshkian announced on January 21 that it had created a committee to examine the causes and consequences of the unrest. Government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said the body is collecting documents and testimony related to the violence.
Critics across Iran’s political spectrum have questioned whether a government-appointed panel can impartially investigate events in which state institutions themselves are accused of involvement.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has already mandated an independent fact-finding mission to investigate alleged serious rights violations linked to the protests.
Established after the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising and extended in January 2026, the mission has never been permitted to enter Iran. Tehran has refused to cooperate with the UN inquiry, dismissing it as politically motivated.
Even moderate commentators—who typically favor gradual change within the system—have questioned the credibility of the government’s initiative.
The reformist newspaper Tose’e Irani wrote that rebuilding public trust would require participation from figures independent of the state.
“For the report of the committee investigating the January events to be credible,” it said, it must include “independent lawyers, human rights activists and even prominent Iranian academics living abroad.”
Journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi similarly warned that any internal investigation would face deep public suspicion.
“What is the problem with inviting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to send a professional team to investigate?” he wrote, arguing that “only a credible international report can end the conflict of narratives.”
Lawyer and political activist Hassan Younesi urged the president to pursue a genuinely independent inquiry, while journalist Hossein Yazdi wrote that a committee would be trusted only if formed by individuals “not themselves accused.”
Public distrust reflects a broader history of disputed official investigations.
Many Iranians have cited previous cases—including the 1999 attack on Tehran University dormitories, the 2020 downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane that killed 176 people, and the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody—as examples where official explanations were widely contested.
Iran’s presidential office says 3,117 people died in the January unrest, including more than 2,400 civilians and security personnel whom authorities say were killed by “foreign enemy agents.”
That figure has been widely challenged. Human rights groups and independent media have reported far higher death tolls. Iran International has reviewed leaked internal government documents indicating the toll may be as high as 36,500.
Allegations from within Iran’s own political establishment have further fueled skepticism.
In a leaked audio recording, reformist politician Ali Shakouri-Rad said security institutions had “deliberately injected violence into the scene” to justify a sweeping crackdown, describing such conduct as “systematic” in Iran’s security policies.
Former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made similar claims, saying forces within the state were responsible for protest deaths.
Pezeshkian initially dismissed Shakouri-Rad’s remarks as “unfair,” but later softened his position, saying he had ordered further investigation into the allegations and authorized additional review through relevant officials.
For many critics, the central question remains whether institutions accused of responsibility for violence can credibly investigate themselves, especially while Tehran rejects all international scrutiny, even refusing to recognise the UN investigators’ mandate.
Iran, the United States and their Omani mediators struck cautiously optimistic notes on Tuesday after a second round of nuclear talks in Geneva, with officials on all sides pointing to progress while emphasizing that significant hurdles remain.
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the negotiations had produced “good progress” and opened a potential path toward a future agreement. But he also warned that diplomacy could not advance under military pressure, calling on Washington to desist from threats of force.
“Different ideas have been presented, these ideas have been seriously discussed,” Araghchi told Iranian media after the talks. He said the two sides had reached a general understanding on key “guiding principles” and now intended to begin working on the text of a potential agreement.
Oman’s foreign minister said there was “much work yet to be done,” but that both sides had left Geneva with “clear next steps” ahead of the next round of negotiations.
Axios quoted an unnamed US official as saying the talks had gone largely as expected, and that Iranian negotiators said they would return within two weeks with proposals aimed at addressing some of the gaps between the two sides.
The negotiations come amid persistent tensions and military signaling. The United States has bolstered its military presence in the Middle East in recent weeks, while President Donald Trump has warned of severe consequences if Iran fails to reach an agreement.
'Slap' against US military
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei struck a defiant tone as the talks unfolded, saying the United States would never succeed in toppling the Islamic Republic.
“The US president said in one of his recent remarks that for 47 years America has been unable to eliminate the Islamic Republic,” Khamenei said Tuesday. “I say: You, too, will not be able to do this.” He added that even “the strongest army in the world may at times receive such a slap that it cannot rise.”
Despite those pressures, Araghchi said a “new window of opportunity” had opened and expressed hope the talks could lead to a sustainable solution that recognizes Iran’s rights while addressing concerns over its nuclear program.
Still, fundamental differences remain.
Washington has been pushing to broaden discussions beyond Tehran’s nuclear activities to include its missile program, but Iranian officials say they are willing to negotiate only limits on nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.
Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, though it has enriched uranium far beyond levels needed for civilian power. The United States and its allies believe Iran is seeking the capability to build nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.
Both sides are expected to exchange documents in the coming weeks before scheduling the next round of talks, with officials emphasizing that any final agreement remains uncertain.
Oman’s foreign minister said that more work remains to be done before a deal can be reached between Washington and Tehran after the second round of Iran-US talks in Geneva on Tuesday.
“Together we made serious efforts to define a number of guiding principles for a final deal. The contribution of the IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi was much appreciated,” Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on X.
“Much work is yet to be done, and the parties left with clear next steps before the next meeting,” he added.
A former senior US official on Iran told Iran International that prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran were slim and argued that regime change in Iran would serve US interests, as Washington continues indirect talks with the Islamic Republic.
Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former US special envoy for Iran, said it was “very difficult” to see diplomacy succeeding if the United States maintained its current demands.
“The president has spoken of wanting an end to the nuclear weapons program, zero enrichment, and wants to do something about the ballistic missile program and the support for terrorist proxies in other countries,” Abrams said in an interview. “The regime is not going to accept that.”
“If the president sticks to what he has said he wants and Secretary Rubio has said the United States needs, there will be no deal,” he added.
Abrams said Iran’s leadership was in a weaker position than at any time in recent years, citing Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and a deadly crackdown on protests.
“It is clearer today than ever that it remains in power only by murdering citizens,” he said. “The economy is in a kind of free fall. Look at the value of the currency. The ability of the regime to protect itself militarily has never been lower.”
He argued that Tehran’s domestic vulnerability could make compromise less likely rather than more.
“They will perhaps think, we cannot show weakness, so we cannot compromise,” he said. “So I think it’s hard to believe a reasonable agreement is possible.”
Access to the global internet has been cut in some Iranian cities, with users limited to the country’s national information network, digital rights advocacy account Filterbaan reported on Tuesday.
The group said disruptions were reported in Qazvin and Ahvaz, while users in Qom, Mashhad, Najafabad, Tabriz, Abdanan and Malekshahi also reported internet outages or slowdowns.
Filterbaan cited Cloudflare radar data showing internet traffic in Iran had dropped by about 45% since last Wednesday, with overall data exchange nearly halved compared with levels before Feb. 11.
