• العربية
  • فارسی
Brand
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Live TV
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Live TV
  • Theme
  • Language
    • العربية
    • فارسی
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Live TV
All rights reserved for Volant Media UK Limited
volant media logo
ANALYSIS

If Britain backs US plan, Iran's London bank shuts down on October 22

Mohamad Machine-Chian
Mohamad Machine-Chian

Iran International

Sep 4, 2026, 14:40 GMT+1

A bank owned by the Iranian state is still open in London, operating on a temporary permission from the British Treasury that expires on October 22. Renewing it, or letting it lapse, is Britain's answer to Washington's campaign to shut Iran's banks for good.

On Monday, August 24, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Washington's new campaign against Iran's regime: Operation Economic Outcast. The objective, in his words, is "to sever every economic lifeline that sustains this tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone."

More than 60 entities, individuals and vessels were designated in the first round. But among all the institutions Bessent named, one stood out: Bank Melli, one of the Iranian state's largest banks, was the only one whose every foreign branch, he said, "must be shuttered and dark."

Bessent also issued a warning to anyone tempted to help: "Any entity that facilitates money laundering on behalf of Iran will be removed from the U.S. dollar system. The clock just started ticking."

Britain has made a narrower accusation. It designated Bank Melli's London subsidiary under its Iran nuclear sanctions regime, and nothing in the bank's UK filings alleges money laundering. Two governments reached the same bank by different legal routes.

Eleven months after Britain sanctioned it, Melli Bank plc still holds a British banking license. It still seats a board, still meets a payroll in London, still files audited accounts. Every asset frozen, every new customer barred, and it remains a bank. Shuttering it is a separate act, and Britain is the only government that can perform it.

A British bank, owned by the Islamic Republic

Bank Melli operates branches and subsidiaries in about ten countries and territories, from the United Arab Emirates to Germany. Its London operation is a company in its own right: Melli Bank plc is registered in England, with a full banking license from Britain's financial regulators, the same authorities that supervise Barclays and HSBC.

Every share of it belongs to Bank Melli Iran, which belongs to the Iranian state. Until April 2026, the chairman of its London board was simultaneously the chief executive of the parent bank in Tehran.

Being a British company comes with a British obligation: publishing audited financial statements for anyone to read. The latest set, 54 pages covering 2025, was filed with the UK corporate registry in June. It amounts to something rare: an inside view of a regime-owned bank as the walls close in.

The accounts also leave no doubt about what the bank was for. Its core business for four decades was financing trade between Iran and Europe, mainly through letters of credit, the standard instrument that guarantees payment in cross-border trade.

The bank's own filings call Iran its "niche market" and say about 92% of its revenue was earned in euros, in what it calls the Eurozone–Iran trade corridor. A €363 million institution, with €258.8 million in capital that ultimately belongs to the Iranian state, existed inside the British financial system to keep money flowing between Iran and Europe.

And business was good, right up to the end. In 2024 the bank recorded its best profit since 2014, €2.4 million. In 2025 its fee income from trade finance surged another 71%, a boom cut short in late September, when the sanctions arrived.

What a severed lifeline looks like

In August 2025, Britain, France and Germany triggered the UN "snapback." The restored sanctions took effect on September 28. The next day, Britain and the European Union sanctioned Melli Bank plc itself.

Since then, the bank has been forbidden from writing a new loan or taking a new customer. Its own accounts describe what remains as the "orderly management" of existing assets and liabilities in a controlled, non-trading environment.

The numbers show what that means in practice:

  • The bank holds about €98 million in deposits that it is not licensed to repay, even as €88 million of them come due. Most of that money belongs to Iranian financial institutions that are themselves under sanctions. Sanctioned depositors, sanctioned bank: the money is simply locked between them.
  • €71 million of the bank's own money is stuck at other banks that hold its accounts, unavailable "due to external restrictions." What the bank can actually reach is about €30 million.
  • Iranian banks owe it €36.5 million in payments that fell overdue during 2025. A year earlier, that figure was zero.
  • Nearly three-quarters of its assets, €259.9 million, are claims on Iran, mostly money owed by Iranian banks. These are the assets that have to go somewhere if the bank stops existing.

The bank's British auditor has formally warned of "material uncertainty" over whether it can continue as a going concern. Its Hong Kong staff left in January when a payment license for their salaries failed to arrive in time. Layoffs began in London in December.

The Tehran representative office is closing. Four board members have departed in little over a year; three remain. Yet seniority still pays: total board compensation rose to €905,000 in 2025, and the highest-paid director received a €615,000 package including rented housing, a company car and private health insurance, in the same year the bank booked €1.26 million in severance costs.

What keeps the lights on at all is a permission slip. A general license from the UK Treasury, issued three and a half weeks after the designation, allows exactly four kinds of payments: wages and severance for its UK-based staff and directors, their pensions, IT bills, and the accountant's fee.

Every month the bank must report every payment it makes, line by line, to the Treasury. Even its lawyers require a separate license; legal and professional costs jumped 57% last year to just over €1 million, more than five times the bank's entire 2025 profit of €181,000, itself down 92% from the year before.

Britain's decision

On August 25, the day after Bessent spoke, Britain's Chancellor John Healey welcomed Operation Economic Outcast, noting that Britain has imposed more than 240 sanctions on Iran since Labour took office in 2024 and pledging to work with Washington on economic pressure.

Britain had sanctioned Melli Bank plc eleven months earlier on grounds of its own, under a nuclear regime unrelated to the money laundering Bessent alleges. The endorsement answers a different question: on the objective, Britain is with Washington.

That question has been open since the war began, with American officials making little secret of their view that British cooperation has run behind Washington's expectations. Melli Bank plc offers a cheap way to close the gap. The bank has been barred from trading since September. Its depositors are overwhelmingly sanctioned Iranian institutions. Its staff is already leaving. Letting the license expire hands Washington a closed bank at almost no cost to Britain.

Britain sanctioned the bank in September 2025, and weeks later the Treasury granted it Interim Necessities General Licence INT/2025/7628424. Renewal followed in April 2026. Every British and European sanction on Melli Bank plc that is in force today was in force then. Washington announced Operation Economic Outcast four months later, on August 24. The license expires on October 22.

The bank expected the signature to come again. Citing legal advice, its accounts say it anticipated renewal, and it behaved accordingly: it had added a new board member weeks before snapback, signed a new Hong Kong office lease a month after being sanctioned, and planned to rehire staff there by this summer.

Its report contains no wind-down plan, no closure scenario, and not a word about what happens to the €98 million in deposits or the €258.8 million in capital if the license lapses.

If the license lapses, the bank cannot lawfully pay its staff or its auditors, and an English company that cannot pay its auditors does not remain a going concern. Insolvency would put Melli Bank plc in front of a British court, which would have to decide what becomes of €98 million owed mostly to sanctioned Iranian banks and €258.8 million of capital belonging to the Iranian state.

Neither the bank nor the Treasury has said what that process would look like. The difficulty of it is the best reason the Treasury has to sign again. Insolvency would release nothing, though: sanctioned money stays frozen whoever administers it.

A freeze is a pause, and this bank has lived through one. The European Union sanctioned Melli Bank plc in 2008. The nuclear agreement lifted those sanctions in 2016, and the bank went back to financing Iranian trade, on its way to its best year since 2014. Everything imposed on it since 2025 could come off the same way, in a deal. Closure ends that.

A surrendered license, distributed capital and a dispersed staff leave nothing to restart, and any future British government minded to have this bank back would have to authorize an Iranian state-owned bank from the beginning.

That is what makes this obscure bank in London worth watching. Operation Economic Outcast rests on a claim that a regime's financial lifelines can be cut in practice. Melli Bank plc shows the machinery running end to end: international snapback, allied designations, a frozen balance sheet, a departing staff, and one administrative decision standing between a regime-owned bank and closure.

On October 22 the Treasury has two options. It can sign the license again and keep Melli Bank plc alive, or let it lapse and close a British bank owned by the Iranian state. Bessent said the clock just started ticking. In London, it already has an alarm set.

---

This report is based on Melli Bank plc's Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2025 and prior years, filed at the UK's Companies House (company no. 04152338); the Companies House register of directors; the UK Sanctions List entry for Melli Bank plc under the Iran (Sanctions) (Nuclear) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019; the UK Treasury's Interim Necessities General Licence INT/2025/7628424 and its Legal Services General Licence INT/2025/7323088, both published on gov.uk; Council Decision 2008/475/EC, which first listed the bank in the European Union, and the delistings of January 2016 under the nuclear agreement; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's remarks of August 24, 2026, announcing Operation Economic Outcast; the UK Chancellor's statement of August 25, 2026; and Iranian press reporting on the removal of Abolfazl Najarzadeh as chief executive of Bank Melli Iran.

Most Viewed

US crackdown leaves much of Iran’s shadow banking untouched
1
EXCLUSIVE

US crackdown leaves much of Iran’s shadow banking untouched

2
ANALYSIS

Iran’s economy is a powder keg. Tehran is preparing for the spark

3

Iran drug shortages hit 800 medicines as costs could triple

4

Iran should cut Persian Gulf internet cables, hardline newspaper says

5
INSIGHT

Xi snub reignites Iran’s doubts about China

Banner
Banner
Banner

Spotlight

  • If Britain backs US plan, Iran's London bank shuts down on October 22
    ANALYSIS

    If Britain backs US plan, Iran's London bank shuts down on October 22

  • US strikes deepen Tehran debate over compromise or confrontation
    INSIGHT

    US strikes deepen Tehran debate over compromise or confrontation

  • Xi snub reignites Iran’s doubts about China
    INSIGHT

    Xi snub reignites Iran’s doubts about China

  • Trump’s call for an Iranian uprising runs into a trust problem
    ANALYSIS

    Trump’s call for an Iranian uprising runs into a trust problem

  • Five years ago, Iran’s planners put today’s crisis on paper
    INSIGHT

    Five years ago, Iran’s planners put today’s crisis on paper

  • Women footballers came home under pressure. Now Iran wants them on camera
    ANALYSIS

    Women footballers came home under pressure. Now Iran wants them on camera

  • Iran or the dollar? US makes an example of Banque Misr

    Iran or the dollar? US makes an example of Banque Misr

•
•
•

More Stories

'If I'm not happy, they'll execute me': Iran's new grammar of dissent

Sep 4, 2026, 14:35 GMT+1
•
Arash Sohrabi
100%
An AI-enhanced and reframed screengrab from a video shows a man dancing while holding a bag of chips and a bottle of soda.

Iranians have found a way to complain about prices that no prosecutor can touch: they film themselves dancing beside the groceries, insist they are delighted, and explain that if they were not, they would be executed.

The format barely varies. A person holds up what they bought and names what it cost. Four eggs and a single sausage, 5 million rials, about $2.30. A soda and a packet of crisps, 3.5 million rials. Three small bags of shopping, 75 million rials, roughly $34, which is close to half a month at Iran's minimum wage of about $75. Then the line, in one version or another: I am very happy, because if I were not, they would execute me. And then they dance.

One man films his phone showing a bank balance of 2 million rials, under a dollar, and dances through the list of what it will not cover: the bounced cheques, the unpaid shop rent, the apartment rent, his wife's clothes.

A veiled woman holds up a few tomatoes, onions and potatoes and explains that she can no longer buy by the kilo, only a handful at a time, "but I am happy, because otherwise they call me a rioter or a traitor." She thanks the authorities and signs off warmly. Another woman does the same with six eggs and a tin of tuna.

Another man dances while captions scroll over him: the dollar at 200,000 tomans, no electricity, deep in debt, and a signed undertaking to the authorities not to engage in politics. The threat varies with the week's official vocabulary: some dancers say they would otherwise be branded a mercenary, a traitor, or a Mossad agent.

It reads, at first, as one more instance of a familiar thing, humor as a pressure valve under repression. That reading is not wrong, but it is not what is new here, and it misses what the videos are actually doing.

  • Iran’s economy is a powder keg. Tehran is preparing for the spark

    Iran’s economy is a powder keg. Tehran is preparing for the spark

Painting things white

The Islamic Republic has a specific charge for describing the country's problems: siah-namai, "painting things black." It is used against journalists, economists and ordinary complainers to mean the deliberate darkening of a reality that is, officials insist, fine. The dance videos answer it precisely. They paint things white, so luridly that the whiteness itself becomes the accusation.

A man delighted by four eggs is not praising the government. He is holding its own demand up to the light.

To see why this is a break rather than a joke, it helps to recall Vaclav Havel's greengrocer, the shopkeeper in communist Czechoslovakia who puts the slogan "Workers of the world, unite!" in his window. He does not believe it. What the sign really says, Havel wrote, is: I am obedient and therefore have the right to be left in peace. The system did not need people to believe. It needed each of them to see everyone else pretending, so that pretending felt like the only choice. Its one requirement was silence about what the pretending was for.

The Iranian dancer is Havel's greengrocer saying the quiet part aloud while still holding up the sign. The compliance is performed, the smile is wide, the gratitude is offered. And in the same breath the coercion behind it is named: I am doing this because the alternative is a noose.

Coerced performance works only while the coercion stays deniable. Havel's greengrocer kept the system standing by leaving the reason unsaid. The dancer says the reason into the camera, and the sign in the window stops working.

A state that can no longer read its own people

Follow that to its end and the videos are doing something sharper than mockery. They are exposing a problem the state has made for itself.

When a government criminalizes complaint, it also empties praise of meaning. If unhappiness can be prosecuted, a happy citizen and a frightened one become impossible to tell apart.

The dancers are demonstrating this to the state's face: you can no longer know whether we are content, because you have made discontent a crime, and so our contentment tells you nothing.

This is the deeper significance of a format built entirely from the state's own words. Every accusation the dancers voice, siah-namai, rioter, mercenary, Mossad agent, traitor, is lifted from official language. The videos are assembled from nothing but the vocabulary the government uses to police speech, and turned into an instrument of it.

Linguists distinguish the message from the metamessage: what a statement says, and what it conveys about the relationship between the people speaking. Every one of these videos carries the same metamessage. I cannot tell you the truth, you know I cannot, and I know that you know.

The gap between "I am delighted" and "I am forbidden to say otherwise" is the entire content. Iranians read it without effort. The state pretends to read only the surface.

From refusing the frame to hollowing the words

The videos are the latest move in a shift that has been accelerating, and each stage has done something different to the relationship between a sign and its meaning.

During the January protests, demonstrators in the western town of Abdanan scattered rice into the air, pouring away a staple that had grown scarce and dear. The gesture refused the frame the state wanted to impose on the unrest.

  • A grain too far: Iranian rice becomes too dear for many

    A grain too far: Iranian rice becomes too dear for many

By throwing away the very thing they could barely afford, protesters were saying the anger was never really about the price of rice. The economy had triggered something larger: a rejection of the whole arrangement.

Then came the funerals. After the January massacre, families burying the dead replaced the state's mourning language, the Quranic recitation, the lamentation, the word shahid, "martyr," with another vocabulary entirely: wedding music, folk dance, verses from the Shahnameh, and a new word for their dead, javid-nam, "whose name will endure."

  • Dancing for the dead: How protest massacre is rewriting Iran’s mourning rituals

    Dancing for the dead: How protest massacre is rewriting Iran’s mourning rituals

  • Iranians burying slain protest youths mourn with dancing and defiance

    Iranians burying slain protest youths mourn with dancing and defiance

  • Iran’s 40-day memorials for protesters spill beyond cemeteries into streets

    Iran’s 40-day memorials for protesters spill beyond cemeteries into streets

That was an act of authorship. The grief was real, and out of it people built a rival ritual language, deliberately cleansed of the religious symbolism the state relies on.

The price videos are the third move, and they are not the same as the funeral dances, even though both use the body and both use music. The funeral dance builds; it replaces the state's grammar with a sincere one of its own. The price video hollows; it takes the state's grammar and performs it as a corpse. One is about the dead and constructs a new language. The other is about the living and empties an existing one. A society that first refused the state's frame, and then authored its own, is now wearing the state's words as a mask.

It is worth remembering how far this has travelled. Dance is not merely frowned upon in Iran; it is effectively illegal, and the word itself is so freighted that the state, when staging its own approved versions, avoids it and reaches instead for the bloodless euphemism harakat-e mozoun, "rhythmic movements," a coinage that was itself widely mocked when it appeared.

  • Dancing Is The New Protest In Iran

    Dancing Is The New Protest In Iran

  • Iranians Dance In Streets As Civil Disobedience To Clerical Rule

    Iranians Dance In Streets As Civil Disobedience To Clerical Rule

  • Iran’s Crackdown On ‘Happiness’ Draws More Criticism

    Iran’s Crackdown On ‘Happiness’ Draws More Criticism

During the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests, teenage girls were detained and pushed into filmed confessions for dancing in a Tehran neighborhood. The same act now circulates in its hundreds, filmed openly by people using their own names and faces, among them veiled women from households where dancing would once have been unthinkable on its own terms, never mind the law's. That is its own measure of how fast the ground is moving.

The trigger, as ever, is money. The rial has been setting records, passing 2,200,000 to the dollar, and on August 31 the judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei called protesters "mercenaries" and promised a firmer hand. But the videos are not really about eggs, any more than the rice was about rice.

They are about a population that has run out of permitted ways to say no, and has started saying yes in a way that unmistakably means it.

The phenomenon has acquired a name, taken from the line the dancers keep repeating: "If I'm not happy, they'll execute me." It is a joke a foreign viewer can laugh at and an Iranian cannot, quite. The Islamic Republic built a machine designed to hear only yes. It is now discovering that yes is what no has learned to sound like.

Trump’s call for an Iranian uprising runs into a trust problem

Sep 4, 2026, 02:17 GMT+1
•
Mojtaba Pourmohsen
100%
US president Donald Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One

Donald Trump’s renewed call for Iranians to rise up against the Islamic Republic has revived a question among some of those he is urging into the streets: after months of shifting US policy, can they trust Washington to stand by them if they do?

The question came as the United States renewed strikes on Iranian military targets and Trump rejected Tehran’s call for a return to the Islamabad Memorandum, saying an agreement with the Islamic Republic was not “worth the paper it’s written on.”

But responses sent by a number of Iran International viewers raised a different question: if Iranians return to the streets, can they be certain that Washington will continue supporting them?

Some pointed to the experience of the past eight months, during which Trump has moved between encouraging Iranians to challenge the Islamic Republic, launching a war against it, reaching an agreement with Tehran and again escalating military pressure.

That history began with the nationwide anti-government protests in December and January.

Trump repeatedly encouraged Iranians to stay in the streets. On January 13, as the crackdown intensified, he told protesters to “take over your institutions” and declared that “help is on its way.”

The repression that followed was on an extraordinary scale. More than 36,500 people were killed by security forces during the January 8-9 crackdown, according to classified government documents and other evidence, including field reports and accounts from medical staff, witnesses and victims’ families, reviewed by Iran International.

Trump also warned Tehran against executing detained protesters, saying the United States would take “very strong action” if executions went ahead.

Days later, he said he had been informed that more than 800 planned executions had been canceled and suggested that his intervention had helped stop them. Iran’s prosecutor general later denied that such a mass execution plan existed.

Then, on February 28, the United States and Israel launched their war against the Islamic Republic.

Trump again addressed the Iranian public directly. He urged people to stay sheltered while the bombing continued but said that once military operations were over, Iranians should “take over your government.”

For opponents of the Islamic Republic who interpreted his remarks as a commitment to support political change, the months that followed produced a more complicated picture.

The war eventually gave way to negotiations and the Islamabad Memorandum. The agreement dealt primarily with security and geopolitical issues, including the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear activities and sanctions. The political rights of Iranians and the government’s repression of protesters were not central elements of the framework.

That did not make Washington an ally of Tehran. The United States has continued imposing severe economic and military pressure on the Islamic Republic, and the agreement itself later unraveled.

But it demonstrated an important limitation to Trump’s earlier rhetoric: Washington’s immediate priorities could shift from political change inside Iran to reaching an arrangement with the government Iranians had been encouraged to confront.

Executions also continued.

Trump has not been completely silent about them. In July, he reacted to the execution of one protester by writing “Savages!!!” and shared material about another case. But those interventions were far more limited than his earlier warnings that executions could trigger strong US action.

This is the context in which Trump is now once again asking Iranians to rise up.

He himself acknowledged on Wednesday why doing so is difficult. Asked about the absence of another uprising, Trump said protesters “get shot,” while arguing that the Islamic Republic was growing weaker and would eventually become less capable of suppressing them.

The scale of the January crackdown makes that explanation difficult to dispute. Taking to the streets against the Islamic Republic can carry an immediate risk of imprisonment, execution or death at the hands of security forces.

But the responses received by Iran International suggest another calculation is also at work for at least some Iranians: what happens if they act on Trump's encouragement and US priorities subsequently change?

There is precedent for Washington placing limits on how far it is prepared to go. During the 12-day Israel-Iran war in June 2025, Trump prevented Ali Khamenei from being assassinated, he later confirmed in a post on Truth Social.

"I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH," Trump posted on June 27, 2025.

That episode does not establish that Trump prevented the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, as some of his critics have argued. But it reinforces the distinction between Trump's rhetoric about regime change and the limits Washington may impose when making military and diplomatic decisions.

Trump’s messages to Iranians over the past eight months have therefore contained two different signals.

He has repeatedly encouraged them to challenge the Islamic Republic and, at moments, suggested that American power would help create an opportunity for them to change their government. At other moments, Washington has prioritized a ceasefire, negotiations and specific US security interests.

For people being asked to risk their lives in another confrontation with the Islamic Republic, that distinction is not theoretical.

Trump is asking when Iranians will rise up and fight. The experience of the past several months helps explain why some of them are responding with a question of their own: if they do, how long can they count on his support?

Five years ago, Iran’s planners put today’s crisis on paper

Sep 4, 2026, 00:43 GMT+1
•
Behrouz Turani
100%
Shopkeepers chat in the carpet section of the Bazaar in Iran's northern city of Qazvin, August, 31, 2026

An economic forecast produced by Iran’s own government planners more than five years ago projected where continued sanctions would leave inflation and the national currency by 2026—and the numbers have proved strikingly accurate.

The model projected inflation of 66% and the dollar at 178,000 tomans in the current Iranian year under a scenario in which sanctions remained in place.

The forecast has resurfaced after Iranian economic journalist Marzieh Mahmoudi highlighted it in a widely shared YouTube video, arguing that successive governments disregarded warnings their own planners had put on paper.

The model was produced by economist Mohammad Hossein Rahmati, then head of the Macroeconomics Office at Iran’s Planning and Budget Organization (PBO).

It projected government revenues and spending, economic growth, inflation, exchange rates and other fiscal indicators through the Iranian year 1406, ending in March 2028.

Best case, worst case

Crucially, it offered policymakers two possible futures: one in which sanctions were lifted and another in which they continued.

Under the continued-sanctions scenario, the model projected the dollar reaching 284,000 tomans in 2027. It now stands at 220,000, having exceeded Rahmati’s 178,000.

Under the alternative scenario, in which sanctions were lifted, Rahmati projected a dramatically stronger rial, with the dollar at around 50,000 to 60,000 tomans by the end of the period.

Several of the projections now bear a striking resemblance to Iran’s economic trajectory, although comparisons are complicated by the multiple exchange rates operating in Iran and the extraordinary volatility of the rial during the war.

In a recent episode of the YouTube-based daily news program Hasht-e Shab (8 PM), Mahmoudi displayed the table and argued that what now looks prescient was politically inconvenient when it first appeared.

The numbers were alarming even in 2021. But rather than treating the projections as a constraint around which policy needed to be built, Mahmoudi said, officials largely sought to distance themselves from them.

‘The dollar sage’

The controversy extended to the Planning and Budget Organization itself. After the table was published and debated in the Iranian press in 2021, the PBO issued a formal denial disputing the forecast attributed to it, despite the model having emerged from its own economic planning apparatus.

The table remains available in the archives of the Iranian Parliament’s Research Center and was also published at the time by Iranian news outlets including Tabnak and Khabar Online.

Rahmati subsequently left his position following disagreements over budget formulation. He became known in Iranian media as “the man of the dollar forecast,” while Mahmoudi argues that his warnings about the fiscal and inflationary consequences of continued sanctions were marginalized rather than acted upon.

The significance of the model goes beyond whether Rahmati correctly guessed the future price of the dollar.

Its two scenarios attempted to show how sanctions would shape Iran’s broader fiscal trajectory. Continued sanctions meant weaker revenues and growth alongside mounting inflationary and exchange-rate pressure, while their removal produced a substantially less damaging outlook.

Five years later, Iran has moved much closer to the former scenario.

Everybody knew

The period covered by Rahmati’s projections has spanned three presidencies—those of Hassan Rouhani, Ebrahim Raisi and Masoud Pezeshkian—and the rial has weakened substantially under each.

The market rate stood at roughly 30,000 tomans to the dollar when Rouhani left office in 2021. It weakened to around 60,000 during Raisi’s presidency before depreciating much more sharply under Pezeshkian amid war, sanctions and mounting fiscal pressure.

The official exchange rate, meanwhile, remained politically managed and increasingly detached from the price at which ordinary Iranians and businesses could obtain dollars.

The result is a trajectory remarkably similar in direction to the one Rahmati’s model warned about more than five years ago, even if individual figures cannot be compared precisely with today’s volatile exchange rates.

Mahmoudi’s central argument is therefore less that one economist successfully predicted the price of the dollar than that Iran’s own economic planners had already modeled the consequences of allowing existing pressures to continue.

Iran drug shortages hit 800 medicines as costs could triple

Sep 3, 2026, 11:39 GMT+1
100%
Pharmacy workers arrange medicines at a pharmacy in Iran.

Iran faces shortages of about 800 medicines, including dozens considered vital, as currency constraints and import disruptions threaten to drive some drug costs as much as threefold, Iranian local media reported on Thursday.

Shortages of foreign currency and raw materials, unpaid insurance debts, difficulties transferring money, disrupted imports and rising production costs have increased concerns about the pharmaceutical supply chain, the Iranian news outlet Rouydad24 reported.

“The alternative routes for supplying raw materials and imports are time-consuming and can increase drug costs by up to three times,” Hadi Ahmadi, spokesman for the Iranian Pharmacists Association, told the outlet.

Shortages of raw materials, Ahmadi said, were hindering domestic pharmaceutical production at the same time that imports were facing disruption.

  • Iran’s healthcare crunch forces patients to cut treatment

    Iran’s healthcare crunch forces patients to cut treatment

Rouydad24 described the problem as extending across the pharmaceutical supply chain rather than being confined to individual medicines or pharmacies, leaving patients to absorb higher costs.

Iranian citizens have also told Iran International in recent months that medicine shortages and rising prices have disrupted treatment for many patients. Some said difficulties obtaining conventional medicines had prompted people to turn to traditional medicine.

Domestic production depends on imports

About 99% of medicines by volume are produced domestically, but imports account for roughly 13.86% of the market by value, according to figures cited by the website.

The disparity reflects the pharmaceutical industry's dependence on imported raw materials, equipment and specialized products even when finished medicines are manufactured inside Iran.

Disruptions to foreign-currency transfers or shipments of raw materials can therefore affect factories before shortages become visible in pharmacies weeks or months later.

Iran's Food and Drug Administration has said raw materials and medicines are being moved through alternative routes because wartime conditions have disrupted transportation.

Those routes take longer and cost more, Ahmadi said.

  • Drug prices jump up to 400% as shortages strain Iranian pharmacies

    Drug prices jump up to 400% as shortages strain Iranian pharmacies

Economic pressures have also changed how some Iranians pay for healthcare. Eghtesad News reported in July that installment payments had increasingly spread through the health sector, including for dental treatment and medicines.

Not enough currency

Iran's pharmaceutical sector requires about $2.2 billion in foreign currency for medicines and raw materials this year, but only around half of that amount has been supplied, Ahmadi said.

Changes to Iran's subsidized foreign-exchange system have added another source of pressure on medicine prices.

100%
A pharmacist sorts medicines at a pharmacy in Iran.

The Food and Drug Administration has said a complete removal of subsidized currency for medicines is not planned this year, although the allocation has been reduced for some products, including insulin.

The agency said the changes did not amount to ending subsidized currency for all medicines or necessarily signal a new wave of price increases.

Ahmadi offered a different assessment of the impact on medicines affected by the changes, saying the removal of subsidized currency for some pharmaceutical groups had pushed the cost of their raw materials up more than fivefold within several months.

Iran International reported in July that patients' out-of-pocket costs for insulin had risen more than 24-fold over about 50 days.

Higher prices fuel informal drug market

Shortages are only part of the pressure facing patients because medicines that remain available may become financially inaccessible as prices rise, Rouydad24 reported.

  • Iranians borrow for medicine while state shields Arbaeen healthcare

    Iranians borrow for medicine while state shields Arbaeen healthcare

“If medicine is available on the market but its price increases several times over, for a patient who needs medication every month and permanently, the price increase can effectively be just as problematic as a shortage,” Rouydad24 wrote.

“If insurance cannot increase its contribution in line with price rises, part of the cost will be paid out of the patient’s pocket.”

The combination of shortages, rising prices and inadequate insurance coverage places particular pressure on people with chronic illnesses, older patients and those who depend on expensive or imported medicines, the outlet added.

Women footballers came home under pressure. Now Iran wants them on camera

Sep 3, 2026, 11:15 GMT+1
•
Raha Pourbakhsh
100%
A file photo of the Iranian national football team in Australia

Five months after Iran's women footballers sought asylum in Australia, the football federation has called the squad back into camp, not to train but to film a documentary about what happened there. Some of the players it wants on camera are the ones who came home under pressure.

While two of those players are building new lives in Australia, thousands of kilometers from their families, having received citizenship there, the Islamic Republic's football federation has summoned their former teammates to record the state's account of the same events.

  • Iran women’s footballers who sought asylum become Australian citizens

    Iran women’s footballers who sought asylum become Australian citizens

  • Brisbane Roar welcomes Iranian players who sought refuge in Australia

    Brisbane Roar welcomes Iranian players who sought refuge in Australia

Farideh Shojaei, the federation's vice-president for women's football, has confirmed that a documentary about Iran's participation in the AFC Women's Asian Cup will be filmed at the camp. She described the purpose as completing the tournament archive and setting down part of the history of Iranian women's football.

The outlet Football 360 had reported earlier that the project belongs to a body outside football, and that most of the players who returned from Australia have no wish to sit in front of the federation's camera and recount what happened on that trip.

A camp that does not add up

The camp has pushed back the start of Iran's women's premier league by a week, and the federation's explanations for holding it have not been consistent.

According to Iranian media, when club coaches objected to the timing, Shojaei assured them the players would not be put under any football training load, because the point of the camp was to film the documentary. Later, explaining why a camp was being held outside a FIFA international window with no fixture ahead of the national team, she said it had been convened at the request of Marzieh Jafari, the national coach, to prepare the players.

  • What the Islamic Republic does to its women footballers

    What the Islamic Republic does to its women footballers

Jafari does not currently hold an active contract with the federation. She is head coach of Khatoon Bam, the club that supplies the core of the national squad, which has just come through Asian Champions League qualifying and now needs to prepare for a new league season.

So a camp that has forced clubs to rearrange their calendars is attributed to a coach with no active federation contract, and was described to the objecting coaches as not being about training at all.

The version the state told first

The documentary is being made several months after Iranian officials gave their own account of what happened in Australia.

In the team's final days there, federation president Mehdi Taj claimed Australian police had separated the women from the men in the delegation and pressured the players into staying and claiming asylum. Esmail Baghaei, the foreign ministry spokesman, went further on television, accusing the Australian government of "taking members of the team hostage."

  • Iran pressuring women footballers who defected in Australia to return

    Iran pressuring women footballers who defected in Australia to return

  • Iran women’s football team kept under tight security in Kuala Lumpur

    Iran women’s football team kept under tight security in Kuala Lumpur

While those claims were being made in public, according to one club executive, money was being raised inside Iranian football to encourage the players to come home.

Alireza Babaei, chief executive of Chadormalou Ardakan, told a Football 360 live program that while the federation was working to bring the whole delegation back, its general secretary Hedayat Mombeini asked Chadormalou to pay 30 billion rials, about $15,000, for the women's national team. Chadormalou does not have a women's team.

According to Babaei, Mombeini also mentioned a payment of 50 billion rials, roughly $25,000, from the Gol Gohar club, and named Sepahan of Isfahan, a club that at that moment was weighing whether to continue fielding teams at all because of war damage to the steel industry.

In Iranian women's football, 50 billion rials from a single club is not a sum to be waved away. Afsaneh Chatrenoor, the national team forward who plays for Gol Gohar, was the premier league's leading scorer last season. She is also the player who sat across from Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei a few months ago and asked the head of the judiciary to help her find work for when her football career ends. At the top level of the Iranian women's game, the contracts of prominent players are still measured in a few billion rials.

  • Inside the dramatic escape of Iranian women footballers seeking asylum

    Inside the dramatic escape of Iranian women footballers seeking asylum

  • Australia grants asylum to five players of Iran women’s football team

    Australia grants asylum to five players of Iran women’s football team

  • Protests and crackdown spill into Iranian sport

    Protests and crackdown spill into Iranian sport

What the tournament was always about

For the Islamic Republic's officials, the Women's Asian Cup in Australia was never only a football tournament.

Several members of the delegation applied for humanitarian protection from the Australian government during the war and after the killing of Ali Khamenei. Some later abandoned their asylum applications and returned to Iran under pressure from security forces on their families.

In those same days, Iranian officials were assembling their own version of events. They spoke of hostage-taking and of players being deceived, while simultaneously turning to threats, intimidation and financial inducements to get the asylum seekers back.

Now some of the same players who returned after that pressure are to sit in front of a camera, in a project belonging to a body outside football, and describe those days again.

It looks less like archiving history than like producing a state edition of it.

This time the Islamic Republic is not only constructing its own account of Australia. It wants the players inside the rewriting.