Hope and hostility collide in Tehran over possible deal with US

In the northern city of Rasht, Friday prayer leader Rasoul Fallahi delivered a fiery speech during one of the nightly pro-government gatherings held since the outbreak of the recent war.

Speaking to supporters, he accused unveiled women of standing against “the system and the Quran,” calling them “immoral and immodest.” He also attacked male relatives of such women, describing their fathers, husbands and brothers as “dishonorable.”

Addressing women seen without hijab at the events and elsewhere, Fallahi warned: “Do not think these people will put up with you.” He escalated his rhetoric further by saying that if the public decided to confront them, “they would do something that would make you no longer dare to leave your homes.”

The speech, broadcast live on provincial television, quickly spread across Iran’s domestic online space and reignited debate over hijab enforcement during wartime.

The conservative-leaning outlet Fararu addressed the issue in an article titled, Why Are Unveiled Women Being Attacked?

“From the parade of ‘Self-Sacrificing Volunteer Girls’ to nightly gatherings supporting fighters, camera lenses seek out women with such appearances to show that all segments of society are present among supporters of the homeland,” the editorial read.

The apparent contradiction—highlighting unveiled women in official imagery while condemning them from the pulpit—has not gone unnoticed.

Supporters of stricter dress codes, including clerics like Fallahi, argue that hijab compliance is mandated by Iranian law. They often cite remarks by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who said several years ago that failing to observe hijab was both “religiously and politically forbidden.”

But Fallahi’s remarks have also drawn criticism from some clerics aligned with the government who argue that emphasizing such issues during wartime risks undermining national unity.

Abdolreza Pourzahabi, the Supreme Leader’s representative in Kurdistan province, cautioned against divisive rhetoric.

“We should not focus on points of division and disturb social calm, causing people already dealing with war to also have to answer for their hijab,” he said.

The debate has also fueled backlash online.

One user wrote: “So if there were no war, the law should be enforced and unveiled women would be beaten, arrested and imprisoned—but because the country is at war and needs people’s presence, it’s temporarily acceptable?”

The broader backdrop dates to September 2022, when the death of Mahsa Amini in custody triggered the nationwide “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests. Since then, authorities have largely avoided aggressive street enforcement of hijab laws for fear of reigniting unrest.

Restrictions nevertheless remain firmly in place in official settings. Women without hijab can still be denied entry to government offices, hospitals and courts, while mandatory hijab rules continue to apply in schools.

Enforcement also varies sharply across the country. In more religious cities such as Qom, stricter measures are still reported.

A user recently wrote on X that while shopping in Qom, an officer shouted at her to observe hijab. When she ignored him, she said he placed his hand on his weapon and threatened to impound her car if she could not find something to cover her head, photographing both her and her license plate.

The dispute reflects a deeper uncertainty within the Islamic Republic: whether the wartime softening around hijab is merely tactical, or a recognition that strict enforcement now carries political risks the state can no longer fully control.

As a fragile ceasefire holds despite exchanges of fire near the Strait of Hormuz, concern has grown about the risk of unrest driven by soaring prices.

The pharmaceutical sector has been among the hardest hit, with some medicine prices reportedly rising nearly six-fold.

“We have a choice between no medicine or making it available at a high price,” Mahmoud Jamalian of parliament’s Health Committee said, according to Asr Iran.

Warnings have also begun to surface about how the state may respond.

Hardline analyst Mostafa Khoshcheshm said on state television that protests over rising prices could be treated as collaboration with foreign powers seeking to destabilize Iran—an indication of how quickly economic grievances could be securitized.

Moderate daily Sharq wrote that after damaging infrastructure, the war is now eroding economic relations and household livelihoods, adding that uncertainty surrounding the conflict is further weakening the economy.

Beyond prices, the disruption has spread across key sectors. Damage to infrastructure and prolonged internet restrictions have slowed or halted parts of the digital economy, while supply chains have come under strain, compounding pressure on businesses and households.

Economist Hossein Raghfar said the government’s handling of the crisis raises serious concerns, warning that continuing current policies will fuel public dissatisfaction.

He argued that frustration over economic conditions—visible during the January unrest—and the state’s inability to address it had weakened the country internally.

Raghfar criticized the use of scarce foreign currency on car imports and said authorities acted too late to halt exports of eggs, rice and meat to stabilize domestic prices.

“Unfortunately, the government is nowhere to be seen these days,” he said, contrasting the current response with the eight-year war with Iraq.

Asked about solutions, Raghfar said Iran still has the capacity to withstand sanctions but lacks the political will to use it. He called for investment in domestic production and urged reallocating funds to revive key sectors.

Another moderate daily, Etemad, reported that workers are emerging as the primary victims of the war and economic strain, with layoffs, unpaid wages and rising poverty becoming widespread.

In Fars Province, between 20 and 100 workers have reportedly been dismissed per workplace; in Rasht, at least 2,000 have lost their jobs in two months.

The Labor Ministry estimates the conflict has cost more than one million jobs, affecting up to two million people directly or indirectly.

Economist Vahid Shaghaghi-Shahri said chronic inflation, temporary contracts and a large informal labor market had already left workers highly vulnerable.

With war, recession and sanctions converging, he urged the government to prioritize “protecting livelihoods and preventing mass unemployment” as an urgent national priority.

Iran has paired a sharp escalation on the water with increasingly explicit threats, signaling what appears to be a deliberate move to deter further US attempts to reopen shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Missile and drone activity reported around the Strait and in the United Arab Emirates on Monday—alongside disputed encounters at sea—suggest Tehran is beginning to act on warnings it had issued only hours earlier.

But the more revealing shift may be in tone.

Iranian military and affiliated voices have moved quickly to frame the moment not as a clash, but as enforcement.

Read the full article here.

According to sources familiar with Tehran’s deliberations, Pezeshkian has expressed strong anger at actions by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, led by Ahmad Vahidi, describing missile and drone strikes on the UAE as “completely irresponsible” and carried out without the government’s knowledge or coordination.

Pezeshkian is said to have described the IRGC’s approach to escalating tensions with regional countries as “madness,” warning of potentially irreversible consequences.

Amid a worsening situation and the risk of the country sliding back into war, Pezeshkian has requested an urgent meeting with Mojtaba Khamenei to press for an immediate halt to IRGC attacks on Gulf states and to prevent further escalation.

He is expected to argue that a narrow window remains to salvage the ceasefire through urgent diplomatic action, and that he should be allowed to signal to international mediators Tehran’s readiness to return to negotiations.

The tensions come as diplomatic efforts to preserve the ceasefire continue, but with a widening gap between military and political approaches inside Iran’s leadership.

At sea, accounts of recent developments remain sharply contested. US officials say commercial ships are continuing to transit and that Iranian threats have been contained.

The IRGC, however, has denied that any passage is taking place and warned that “violating vessels” would be stopped, while Iranian media reported that ships were forced to turn back.

President Donald Trump has stopped short of declaring the ceasefire breached, saying recent exchanges were “not heavy firing” and that “ships are moving.”

In Iran’s power structure, major security and military decisions are ultimately taken at the highest levels of the system and in coordination with key state bodies, underscoring the significance of the president’s request.

Sources close to the presidency, who shared the information with Iran International, say Pezeshkian is deeply concerned about potential international reactions and believes the country cannot withstand a new full-scale war.

He has warned that continued unilateral attacks could trigger heavy US retaliation against critical energy and economic infrastructure—an outcome he reportedly said could lead to widespread destruction and an irreversible collapse in livelihoods.

The political deadlock comes as some observers warn that divided command on the battlefield risks pushing the Islamic Republic toward what they describe as “military self-destruction.”

Missile and drone activity reported around the Strait and in the United Arab Emirates on Monday—alongside disputed encounters at sea—suggest Tehran is beginning to act on warnings it had issued only hours earlier.

But the more revealing shift may be in tone.

Iranian military and affiliated voices have moved quickly to frame the moment not as a clash, but as enforcement.

“The Strait of Hormuz is entirely under Iranian control,” a senior Iranian source said, according to Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Mayadeen. “The message to the American aggressors is: Advance, and you will be targeted.”

‘Asymmetric operations’

That message builds on earlier warnings from senior commanders that any transit not coordinated with Iranian forces could be treated as a threat.

Ali-Akbar Ahmadian, a member of Iran’s Defense Council, pushed the line further, warning that any US action targeting shipping or energy infrastructure would be met with the Islamic Republic’s “asymmetric operations.”

The statements point to a posture that is no longer simply declaratory, but increasingly operational, especially against the backdrop of state-linked rhetoric in the hours before the incidents..

One day before the reported attacks in the UAE, Iranian state television accused Abu Dhabi of involvement in strikes on Iran’s Siri and Lavan islands during the US-led war, claiming Emirati Mirage jets, Wing Loong drones and unmarked F-16s had taken part.

The claims—unverified but widely circulated in Iranian media—help set the stage for a narrative in which regional actors are treated not as bystanders but as participants, and therefore legitimate targets.

That framing was reinforced after the incidents. Regional authorities reported missile and drone launches toward the UAE, while Iranian media attributed damage at energy facilities in Fujairah to what it described as US “military adventurism,” denying any pre-planned Iranian attack.

‘Ships are moving’

At sea, accounts have diverged sharply but point to the same underlying reality: rising friction around attempts to move vessels through the Strait.

US officials said commercial ships had transited and that Iranian threats had been contained. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, however, denied that any passage had taken place and warned that “violating vessels” would be stopped.

Iranian media reported that ships attempting to cross were forced to turn back, while Washington rejected claims that its naval forces had been pushed out of the area.

US President Donald Trump, for his part, stopped short of declaring the ceasefire violated.

“(It was) not heavy firing,” he said in a phone interview, adding that “ships are moving” and that reports of recent exchanges were still being assessed.

The combination of rhetoric, incidents and competing claims suggests Tehran is seeking to impose a new reality in the Strait—one in which access is conditional and enforced.

Political figures have echoed that direction, pointing to efforts to formalize new rules governing transit and warning that any US role in shaping maritime access would be treated as a violation of ceasefire terms.

For now, the message from Tehran appears consistent: movement through the Strait will not be uncontested, and any attempt to bypass Iranian control risks drawing a response.