Top condom maker plans price hikes of up to 30% amid US-Iran war impact

Greek risk management firm MARISKS said unknown actors posing as Iranian authorities had contacted companies whose vessels are stuck west of the strategic waterway, asking for transit fees in Bitcoin or Tether in return for “clearance.”

"These specific messages are a scam," the firm said in an alert, adding the communications did not originate from Iranian authorities.

The warning comes as the United States continues a blockade of Iranian ports, while Iran has imposed restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz, a key chokepoint through which about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas once passed before conflict disrupted flows.

Amid ceasefire talks, Tehran has suggested collecting tolls from vessels seeking safe transit, contributing to uncertainty among shipowners.

• 

  Why the $100 billion Hormuz toll revenue is a myth

• 

  Iran floats Hormuz transit tolls as Persian Gulf states warn of military response

Hundreds of vessels and roughly 20,000 seafarers remain stranded in the Persian Gulf due to the disruptions, according to the firm.

On April 18, when Iran briefly allowed limited passage subject to inspections, several ships attempted to transit, but at least two vessels, including a tanker, reported that Iranian boats fired shots, forcing them to turn back.

MARISKS said it believed at least one ship that came under fire while trying to leave the strait on Saturday may have been affected by the fraudulent scheme.

The messages cited by the firm said vessels would need to submit documents for review by Iranian security services, after which a cryptocurrency fee would be set before transit at a pre-arranged time.

“Many bakeries are facing flour shortages and cannot keep up with long lines of customers,” a resident from Malard west of Tehran said.

Another account said: “Right after the war, bread prices doubled. Barbari (a type of Iranian bread) is now 250,000 rials and Sangak is 350,000. Subsidized flour has been removed.”

The reported prices are far above official rates, with the latest approved price for Sangak at about 76,000 rials and Barbari around 55,000.

April 20 marks National Wheat and Bread Day in Iran, meant to highlight the central role of wheat in daily life, but accounts point to worsening conditions for a basic staple.

Conflicting claims on wheat supply

Wheat self-sufficiency has long been a goal promoted by many officials of the Islamic Republic. The first celebration of wheat self-sufficiency was held on November 16, 2004, during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami.

However, this self-sufficiency did not continue in subsequent years for various reasons, including water shortages, and Iran remained reliant on wheat imports. Still, the aspiration for self-sufficiency has continued to be repeated in officials’ statements.

Now, 22 years after the first “self-sufficiency celebration,” as buying bread is becoming an economic challenge for citizens, Ataollah Hashemi, head of the National Wheat Farmers Foundation, has once again reiterated the goal. Speaking on Saturday, April 18, he said: “The country will not need to import wheat this year.”

Yet official customs data shows Iran imported about 2.75 million tons of wheat worth nearly $1 billion in the 10 months to February 2026. The imports were sourced largely from Russia, as well as through intermediaries such as the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.

The reliance on intermediaries, which are not major wheat exporters themselves, points to complications tied to banking restrictions and payment channels, increasing costs through additional transport and fees.

The gap between official statements and import figures raises questions about the sustainability of domestic production and the credibility of self-sufficiency statements.

100%

Rising costs and policy pressures

Bread prices have increased across provinces in the current Iranian year that began on March 21, following subsidy cuts and the move toward a single flour pricing system. Prices now vary depending on flour type and region, with some bakeries selling above official rates.

Despite parliament approving a budget that allocates more than 5,000 trillion rials (over $3 billion) for bread subsidies, no new national price list has been issued for the current year. As a result, last year’s rates remain in effect, while enforcement appears inconsistent.

Inflation and shortages

Before the latest conflict and US-Israeli strikes, annual inflation had already exceeded 70 percent, with food inflation reaching triple digits. Official data shows bread and cereals recorded year-on-year inflation of about 140 percent.

The removal or reduction of subsidized flour in parts of the market has added to the pressure, with more bakeries operating under higher-cost “free flour” systems.

Citizen reports suggest the combined impact of shortages and rising prices is becoming more visible. Long queues at bakeries and inconsistent supply have emerged alongside sharp increases in retail prices.

For many households, bread remains a primary food source, making these changes particularly significant.

The accounts from Tehran and other areas point to a broader strain across the country, where access to basic goods is increasingly shaped by rising costs, uneven supply, and policy shifts that have yet to stabilize the market.

Reports from Tehran suggest the government’s new reconstruction plan has created a deep sense of abandonment among citizens who assumed war-related destruction caused by a national conflict would be covered by the state.

On Thursday, the Iranian Labor News Agency (ILNA) quoted Tehran Province official Mohammad Sadeq Motamedian as saying that “nearly 40,000 residential units across Tehran Province have been damaged.”

Earlier, Donya-ye Eghtesad reported that the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development estimated roughly 45,000 residential and non-residential units were damaged during the March war but did not require demolition, while nearly 1,000 units needed full reconstruction.

Motamedian’s assessment has intensified debate over the true scale of destruction and the government’s approach to rebuilding.

In Tehran, Mayor Alireza Zakani had previously promised full reconstruction of ruined homes and restoration of damaged buildings, but there has been little clarity on how much progress has been made.

The government’s reconstruction strategy became more controversial after spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said on April 15 that the administration would not provide direct financial assistance to rebuild destroyed homes.

Instead, she said the government would offer what officials call “floating density,” a system of additional building permits intended to encourage private developers to help reconstruct damaged housing.

Under the plan, builders could reconstruct damaged or destroyed homes in exchange for permission to add one or two additional floors to new buildings, which they would then be allowed to sell for profit.

Critics say the proposal is unrealistic. Density bonuses cannot compensate families who have lost their homes, especially at a time when construction costs are soaring.

For many displaced households, the absence of direct financial support raises serious questions about how reconstruction could realistically proceed.

Government bodies have also released widely differing figures about the scale of damage. Some officials have suggested only a few thousand homes were affected, while others have put the number in the tens of thousands.

Donya-ye Eghtesad noted that estimates range from about 1,000 homes requiring full reconstruction to tens of thousands with varying levels of damage, leaving residents uncertain about the true scale of destruction and the level of support they can expect.

The discrepancies have fueled speculation that the government may be downplaying the extent of war damage in order to limit financial obligations, reinforcing broader criticism of opaque communication during and after the conflict.

The protests were the result of several crises converging at once. Economic collapse, political exclusion and a growing sense of humiliation pushed society beyond its tolerance threshold and created a shared feeling across social groups that life in Iran had become increasingly unlivable.

When demonstrations erupted across the country, many slogans targeted the Islamic Republic itself.

The roots of the unrest run deep in provinces that host major oil and industrial projects but have long seen little improvement in living standards.

From Abadan to Bushehr and from Kangan to Gilan-e Gharb, many of the cities that first erupted in protest are places where people have spent years asking the same question: where did the country’s oil wealth go?

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government attempted to calm tensions by announcing direct cash payments to households after eliminating subsidized exchange rates. The payment amounted to about one million tomans—roughly seven dollars.

The gesture came at a time when food prices were soaring. Cooking oil prices had risen more than 200 percent, eggs were more than twice as expensive as a year earlier, and some shopkeepers had begun selling basic dairy products on installment plans.

For many Iranians the payment symbolized not relief but humiliation.

The middle class and the bazaar

One of the defining features of the January protests was the erosion of the social distance between Iran’s middle class and its poorer citizens.

Historically, Iran’s middle class has been a carrier of civil and political demands. But by early 2026 many middle-class families were struggling simply to avoid falling into poverty.

Political sociologists have long argued that revolutions are rarely led by the poorest members of society. They tend instead to emerge among groups that once enjoyed relative stability but now feel they are falling.

In Iran, the middle class had not only lost income but also social status. That loss helped create an unwritten alliance between middle-class citizens and poorer groups, both of whom felt they were suffering under the same policies.

Another signal that the unrest had entered new territory came when parts of Tehran’s Grand Bazaar closed on January 7.

The bazaar has historically been one of the most cautious institutions in Iran’s political life. Even during severe economic crises it has often preferred negotiation and indirect pressure to open confrontation. During the 2009 protests many merchants stayed silent, and in 2022 they largely remained on the sidelines. This time was different.

Currency volatility made supply chains chaotic and pricing unpredictable. A product purchased in the morning could be worth something entirely different by the afternoon. Many traders said they could no longer price goods reliably, and keeping shops open risked losses rather than gains.

When sections of the bazaar shut their doors, it signaled that dissatisfaction had spread beyond traditional protest groups. A conservative economic institution had concluded that the existing order itself had become a source of instability.

The collapse of reformist hopes

For some voters, President Pezeshkian had represented a final opportunity for reform and for avoiding war.

As protests intensified, however, he adopted increasingly hardline rhetoric. On January 11 he described protesters as “terrorists” and called on security forces to respond decisively.

Even some reformist figures who had supported him began to express frustration.

The shift reinforced a broader perception among many Iranians that the political system was incapable of meaningful change.

Combined with the economic crisis and the aftermath of the 12-day war, this sense of political closure deepened public despair.

From scattered anger to mass protest

The January protests also unfolded against a tense geopolitical backdrop.

Statements from foreign political figures—including remarks by Donald Trump warning Tehran against violent repression—were widely circulated among Iranian audiences. At the same time, Iran’s exiled prince Reza Pahlavi called for coordinated demonstrations and nightly slogans across the country.

Such messages helped focus attention on specific moments of protest. But they did not create the anger that drove people into the streets. That anger had been building for years.

The protests occurred as the Islamic Republic appeared to be shifting toward what might be described as a more defensive style of governance.

In this approach, economic grievances and social demands are increasingly treated as potential security threats. Limited cultural concessions—such as relaxing enforcement of the hijab law or allowing controlled concerts—serve mainly as tools for managing pressure rather than as signs of genuine reform.

The January protests tested this model. The state ultimately suppressed the demonstrations. Yet repression alone cannot address the deeper structural tensions that produced the uprising in the first place.

The streets may have emptied. But many Iranians now believe that the country cannot return to the conditions that existed before January.

The protests that started in the Grand Bazaar of Tehran in late December and quickly spread across the country were followed by what has been described as the deadliest crackdown on protesters in Iran’s contemporary history in January.

Shortly thereafter, a war involving the United States and Israel began, compounding the country’s economic distress.

The service sector was hit hard during the protests. Advertising agencies, technical consulting firms, digital service providers, and hospitality and tourism businesses have since suffered further, and in many cases irreparable, damage because of the war.

Three weeks of internet disruptions during the protests, and over 1,100 hours since the beginning of the war on February 28, have effectively paralyzed large parts of the digital economy.

"According to official estimates released by Iranian authorities, more than 10 million people in Iran earn their income directly through the internet. As a result, any disruption or shutdown of internet services poses a serious threat to their livelihoods," Dadban, a legal advisory and training center for activists, said in a report.

"With the continuation of this situation, millions have faced a sharp drop in income or unemployment," Dadban added.

More significantly, the conflict has inflicted severe damage on critical economic infrastructure, including key petrochemical industries and steel production across multiple cities. These sectors, considered the backbone of Iran’s industrial economy, have suffered extensive losses.

The destruction of major industries has disrupted the supply of raw materials, triggering cascading effects across manufacturing and related sectors.

Widespread layoffs have followed, affecting not only workers in these industries but also those employed in dependent businesses.

At the same time, exports have declined sharply, further constraining an already limited flow of foreign revenue.

The scale of the economic shock is underscored by official estimates. A government spokesperson has put total war damages at around $270 billion—roughly 57 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product and several times larger than the country’s annual oil revenues.

The figure is estimated to be nearly three times the government’s general budget, highlighting the unprecedented fiscal strain facing the state.

Stagflation and rising risk of renewed unrest

Iran’s economy has now entered a period of stagflation, combining high inflation with economic stagnation and rising unemployment.

Even if the conflict were to end in the near term, economists warn that recovery will be protracted and uneven.

These worsening conditions have heightened the risk of renewed social unrest.

Without a political resolution—particularly an agreement with the United States—analysts suggest that further protests, potentially larger than those seen in December, are increasingly likely.

Public anger boils over online

Public sentiment, particularly on social media, reflects growing frustration and despair.

One user highlighted the desperation faced by unemployed citizens: “I live in Tehran, I’m married and renting. Since January I was working reduced hours, and I was officially laid off on March 25.”

Another user described the collapse of freelance work: “In this situation, most jobs have shut down, especially for people like us who worked freelance. Our income has dropped to zero, and we don’t know what we can do if the war and internet outages continue.”

A third user wrote: “Given the brutality of the clerical regime and its supporters, the skyrocketing prices of basic necessities, and the bizarre inflation that keeps getting worse… I think people are just waiting for a spark to come back to the streets. Death is no longer the issue—this situation is worse than death and must end.”

Inflation surges to historic highs

Inflation has risen dramatically over the past 100 days. Official data show point-to-point inflation, already above 50 percent at the end of December, climbed to over 70 percent by late February—before the war—reaching its highest level in decades.

In essential goods such as meat, dairy, oil, rice, fruits, and vegetables, inflation has exceeded 110 percent. Prices of critical medications, including some types of insulin, have multiplied several times—when they are available at all.

Although updated overall inflation figures have not been released, some experts believe the rate may already have entered triple digits, with further increases expected.

Survival economy takes hold

Some Iranians say the absence of severe shortages during the war reflects collapsing demand rather than stable or sufficient supply. With incomes sharply reduced, many households can no longer afford basic goods.

To cope, families are increasingly relying on savings, rental deposits, or loans from banks and relatives—placing them at risk of losing their homes. In some cases, household are selling personal belongings just to afford food.

Business owners are also under pressure. Many have begun selling equipment, with online marketplaces now flooded with listings for café and restaurant supplies and electronic devices—often with little or no buyer interest.

Meanwhile, the government faces mounting fiscal constraints. Even before the war, it struggled to meet budgetary obligations. Now, with millions feared to be unemployed, the government lacks the capacity to provide adequate unemployment benefits, and some workers report being unable to access them at all.