Iran crackdown reaches cemeteries as graves of slain protesters defaced

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf sharply criticized opponents of a potential agreement with the United States in a meeting with advisers, Iran International has learned.

Ghalibaf, who also led Iran’s team in the latest negotiating with Washington, described figures including Saeed Jalili, a member of Iran’s National Security Council, and hardline Iranian MP Amirhossein Sabeti as extremist militia-like actors who would destroy Iran.

He said the camp was using state television and mobilizing hardline supporters to intensify opposition to negotiations and a possible deal with the United States.

Ghalibaf also voiced concern about being removed from the speakership and about Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi being pushed out of office.

What began as an economic protest quickly evolved into a nationwide political crisis, prompting one of the most intense crackdowns in the Islamic Republic’s history.

What distinguishes the January protests from earlier waves is the simultaneous appearance of three dynamics: broad social mobilization, a highly concentrated burst of lethal repression over a very short period, and an organized effort to conceal the scale of the violence.

Unlike some earlier protest waves that were concentrated in specific regions, these demonstrations appeared simultaneously across multiple urban centers, suggesting a buildup of dissatisfaction across different layers of society.

At their peak on January 8, the protests were likely among the largest episodes of social mobilization since the 1979 revolution. The scale of participation appears to have played a key role in shaping the government’s response.

A bloody turning point

The crackdown on January 8 and 9 was unprecedented. Reports and documentation indicate widespread killings during this brief period—violence that can be described as the most concentrated episode of repression in the history of the Islamic Republic.

What made these days particularly notable was not only the number of casualties but the speed with which they occurred.

In earlier protests—such as the November 2019 unrest or the 2022 uprising—violence was spread across several days or weeks. In January 2026, however, a significant portion of the deaths occurred within roughly forty-eight hours.

This “compression of violence” suggests a shift in repression strategy: an effort to break the protest wave quickly before it could consolidate.

Reports by international organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as medical accounts and eyewitness testimony have provided a clearer picture of how the crackdown unfolded.

According to these reports, security forces used live ammunition and lethal firearms extensively and directly against protesters. Weapons reported in use included assault rifles, shotguns and in some cases heavy machine guns.

Witnesses also described the presence of snipers positioned on rooftops and elevated locations, firing deliberately at protesters’ heads, chests and other vital organs.

Alongside these weapons, so-called “less-lethal” tools such as pellet guns and tear gas were also used. Amnesty International reported that pellet rounds were frequently fired at close range or aimed at sensitive parts of the body, causing blindness and permanent injuries.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that the tools used during the crackdown went well beyond standard riot-control measures and approached the use of battlefield weaponry against civilians.

A war of numbers

One of the most contested aspects of the January protests remains the number of people killed.

Government officials have acknowledged roughly three thousand deaths. Rights groups have suggested at least double that. Iran International says the number exceeds 36,000, based on internal security briefings obtained and reviewed by the channel.

Additional reports mention thousands of unidentified victims whose identities have yet to be confirmed.

International bodies, including the United Nations special rapporteur on Iran, have noted that severe restrictions on information have made independent verification difficult. Even so, they say the true number of victims is likely significantly higher than official figures.

The gap between these estimates is not simply a numerical dispute. It reflects the broader environment in which the crackdown unfolded—one where repression was accompanied by efforts to control the narrative and obscure the scale of events.

A multi-layered crackdown

The repression in January 2026 extended far beyond the streets.

Reports indicate that security forces entered hospitals during the peak of the crackdown and detained wounded protesters, effectively turning medical treatment into a security risk.

Such actions not only increased fear among the injured but also discouraged people from seeking medical care.

The management of victims’ bodies and mourning ceremonies also became part of the repression apparatus. Families often struggled to locate the bodies of relatives among large numbers of victims held in forensic facilities.

In many cases bodies were released only after delays or under strict conditions, and funerals were closely monitored or restricted.

These practices suggest that controlling the social and emotional consequences of the killings became nearly as important as suppressing the protests themselves.

The internet blackout

Internet shutdowns played a critical role during the protests.

Unlike the blackout during the November 2019 protests, which followed the expansion of demonstrations, the restrictions in January 2026 appeared closely synchronized with the crackdown itself.

Connectivity disruptions lasted longer and were implemented in a more targeted and controlled manner.

The restrictions severely limited the flow of information, the sharing of images and videos, and even everyday communication between citizens.

As a result, documenting events and verifying reports became extremely difficult, while emergency coordination and independent reporting were also constrained.

If the 2019 protests symbolized repression under a nationwide internet blackout and the 2022 uprising represented the persistence of protest under sustained pressure, the events of January 2026 may mark a new stage where repression operates simultaneously across multiple layers.

The protests themselves may have subsided. But the scale of the violence—and the unanswered questions surrounding it—continue to shape Iran’s political landscape.

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.

At least 36,500 Iranians were killed by the Islamic Republic during the January uprising, mostly on January 8 and 9, according to classified documents, field reports and witness accounts reviewed by Iran International, with the true toll believed by many to be far higher.

The dead included children, students and the elderly. Among the youngest victims frequently cited was three-year-old Melina Asadi.

100%

One image from the unrest remains etched in public memory: a bloodied older woman standing in the street, fist raised, saying, “I’m not afraid. I’ve been dead for 47 years.”

Another was the sight of body bags. Videos that emerged despite the blackout showed rows of black bags lining courtyards, makeshift morgues overflowing and desperate families searching among the dead for loved ones.

Some bodies appeared with catheters and breathing tubes still in place, reinforcing witness claims that wounded protesters were killed after reaching hospitals.

One eyewitness, Kiarash — whose surname is being withheld for security reasons — described Tehran’s main cemetery as a “warehouse of bodies,” saying trucks continued arriving to unload more corpses as families waited outside.

The protests, which erupted in early January, were met with overwhelming force. Demonstrators demanding freedom were confronted with live fire, blades and military-grade repression.

Witnesses also described hospitals turned into extensions of the crackdown. Doctors and healthcare workers were allegedly threatened, detained or attacked for treating the injured. Some families say loved ones who survived initial gunfire were later killed inside hospital wards.

One such case was 17-year-old Sam Afshari, whose father told Iran International that after being wounded during protests in Karaj, his son was taken to hospital alive, placed on a breathing tube and then fatally shot.

“They finished him off,” his father said.

• 

  'They finished him off': father recounts hospital killing of teen protester

Authorities and some outside observers initially portrayed the unrest as primarily economic. But many Iranians rejected that narrative.

While anger first surfaced in the bazaars — historically seen as a pillar of the Islamic Republic’s support base — in late December, demonstrations quickly spread to universities, provincial towns and religious communities.

Unrest reached hundreds of cities and towns nationwide, according to reports reviewed by Iran International.

For many participants, this was not just another protest wave. It was the release of 47 years of accumulated pressure over repression, corruption, economic decline and personal freedoms.

Iranians were demanding a future not defined by compulsory social controls, state violence or a nuclear confrontation that repeatedly drags the country into crisis.

On January 8, authorities cut public access to the internet, triggering a 20-day digital blackout that rights groups say helped conceal the scale of the killings.

The blackout severely restricted access to independent information, communication with family abroad and documentation of abuses.

Iranian officials also acknowledged economic damage, with estimates placing losses in the tens of millions of dollars per day.

Trump support resonated with some protesters

During the uprising, support from US President Donald Trump drew significant attention.

For some Iranians, it mattered because memories of the 2009 Green Movement — the mass protest movement that erupted after disputed elections under President Barack Obama — still run deep. Many from that era felt the world did not do enough.

A few days after the January 8–9 massacre of protesters, Trump publicly backed demonstrators, writing: “Iranian patriots… KEEP PROTESTING… HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” He urged them to “take over your institutions” and warned the US was “locked and loaded.”

Despite mixed views on the effectiveness of a military campaign to topple the Islamic Republic, many Iranians felt so desperate that they wanted Trump to begin strikes as soon as possible.

He did so nearly 50 days after the massacre.

40-day war hits regime hard

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated military campaign targeting the Islamic Republic’s leadership, nuclear infrastructure, missile systems, air defenses and internal security apparatus.

The operation included tens of thousands of strikes on military and strategic sites across Iran. Senior regime figures were killed, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in the most dramatic leadership blow since the 1979 revolution.

Other targets included IRGC commanders, Basij infrastructure, military production centers and strategic compounds tied to regime control. Iranian missile launchers and parts of the country’s strike capability were also heavily degraded.

For many Iranians who blamed these institutions for repression, torture and killings, the campaign was seen not simply as war, but as the first time the machinery used against them had itself come under sustained attack.

Videos reviewed by Iran International showed some Iranians thanking US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the strikes. Others celebrated in homes and streets, with some dancing to YMCA — the song closely associated with Trump rallies — seeing the moment as symbolic justice after years of suffering.

Others hoped the weakening of the regime’s coercive apparatus could create space for future protest and political change, as promised by both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Yet even as parts of the repressive apparatus were hit, executions of prisoners and dissidents continued. Human rights groups say Iran carried out a record number of executions last year and warn the death penalty may be used even more aggressively after the war.

Diplomacy returns, questions remain?

The military campaign paused with the announcement of a two-week ceasefire on April 8, and the rhetoric has since shifted toward diplomacy: talk of deals, sanctions relief, frozen assets, and uranium transfers.

Iranian civil society groups have urged negotiators to include the release of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in any agreement, arguing peace without human rights would leave thousands behind.

For many Iranians, the central question remains unchanged: where are the Iranian people in these negotiations?

Those killed in the streets, in detention and in hospitals did not die for another nuclear arrangement, many argue, nor to see one insider replaced by another such as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

One hundred days later, Iran remains suspended between grief and uncertainty.

Some feel partially avenged by the killing of Khamenei and his commanders, and by the weakening of the regime. Others still hold out hope that change may come. But many say they fear the world has moved on without them.

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.