Iran International
Iran’s deepening isolation is drawing divided reactions from Persian-language social media users, with some welcoming US pressure to weaken the country’s rulers and others warning that ordinary people will bear the cost without producing political change.
The posts reviewed by Iran International reflect individual online reactions and are not representative of public opinion in Iran. But they show how the growing economic pressure is being interpreted by people arguing both for and against the blockade.
That pressure has intensified as the US naval blockade sharply curtailed Iran’s oil exports, a major source of foreign currency. Iranian crude loadings fell from about 2 million barrels per day in March to roughly 220,000-255,000 in August, according to shipping data cited by Reuters.
“Great. An air and sea blockade, then a land blockade, will lead to the government’s fall,” one Persian-language social media user wrote.
“The economic blockade is choking it,” another wrote.
Support for continued pressure has also appeared on Reddit. “I said months ago that the blockade is a good strategy,” one commenter wrote, expressing hope that US President Donald Trump would maintain it.
Another user in the discussion described maintaining the pressure as “Great for Iran.”
Taken together, the posts illustrate a view among supporters of the blockade that restricting trade and government revenue could weaken the Islamic Republic’s ability to withstand domestic pressure.
One user argued that the blockade could erode the authorities’ ability to administer and control the country by reducing oil revenue, weakening internal cohesion and increasing economic pressure.
“The blockade is not the objective, but the instrument,” he wrote, arguing that the aim was to increase pressure until the authorities struggled to maintain stability and manage the economy.
Others say ordinary Iranians will pay
Other users rejected the idea that economic isolation would bring political change and warned that the greatest burden would instead fall on the public.
“I don’t know of an example in history where sanctions and an economic blockade caused a revolution. Ordinary people just suffer,” one user wrote on X.
Another said prolonged isolation could strengthen corruption and preferential access, leaving politically connected people better placed to profit from shortages while the wider population becomes poorer.
“This situation could continue for years,” the user wrote, adding that the authorities could blame worsening economic conditions on the blockade.
For others, the consequences are already visible far beyond politics and trade.
“You can’t leave the country by air or sea. All the language exams have sanctioned us. Eighty percent of online games are restricted for Iranians. You can’t even create a Gmail account,” another person wrote on Instagram.
“It’s as though the project to erase Iranians from the face of the earth has officially begun,” the user added.
Dark humor over growing isolation
The restrictions have also prompted sarcasm directed at official assertions of resilience.
After Turkish Airlines suspended its Iran flights until at least March 2027, one commenter ironically invoked a familiar phrase in Iranian political rhetoric: “America can’t do a damn thing.”
“They just keep announcing victories one after another,” another wrote with laughing emojis.
A longer sarcastic comment mocked rhetoric about missiles, drones and military strength before concluding: “If the blockade continues, soon we’ll have to eat grass.”
Economic hardship also featured in discussions on Reddit. One commenter said half their monthly salary went on groceries and food and the other half on rent, leaving them dependent on savings. Another described paying 15 million rials for a kilogram of cold cuts and pickles.
The rial has fallen sharply during the economic squeeze, trading at more than 2.3 million to the dollar in September.
Iran’s official minimum monthly wage is about 166 million rials, worth roughly $71 at that exchange rate, meaning the purchase described by the commenter would amount to about 9% of a minimum-wage worker’s basic monthly pay.
Four people appeared on IRIB’s Be Vaght-e-Iran (Iran Time) program, with three speaking during an exchange on how Abu Dhabi has adapted its oil shipments to Iran’s approach to the strategic waterway.
One participant suggested Iran could target the smaller shuttle vessels moving through the strait or strike their point of origin. Another rejected that approach as insufficient.
“It makes no sense to just hit these vessels. That is not an adequate response to this change in logic,” he said.
A third participant laid out the central argument: Abu Dhabi has sought to change the economics behind Iran’s maritime leverage rather than directly challenge its military capabilities.
“The UAE has attacked the logic of closing the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.
Cheap ships change the calculation
Iran’s strategy, according to the panel, had relied partly on the vulnerability of very large crude carriers, or VLCCs, whose high value meant the prospect of an Iranian strike could make voyages commercially prohibitive as insurers withdrew coverage.
The UAE has sought to remove that pressure by creating a state-backed logistics chain and using smaller, cheaper vessels that can be readily replaced.
“It is defining a battlefield that has been designed to its advantage,” the commentator said. “It says: fight me here. You hit these small ones, and I keep replacing them.”
Abu Dhabi is also using ageing VLCCs that would otherwise be destined for scrapping because they no longer meet environmental or safety standards required at many ports, according to the discussion.
The ships can be worth considerably less than the oil they carry, reducing the economic loss if Iran damages them.
The broadcast also described a pattern in Iranian operations that the UAE could anticipate. Iranian forces radio vessels, fire warning shots if they continue and then target the bridge rather than immediately sinking the ship, giving crews around 30 to 40 minutes to evacuate.
Abu Dhabi has responded by positioning tugboats to recover damaged vessels and tow them to Sohar in Oman, where their cargo can still be unloaded, the main contributor said.
“The tugboat comes and attaches itself right there to the ship that has been hit,” he said. “They tow it to Sohar and unload it there on the Omani coast.”
The result, he argued, is that Iran can damage a vessel without preventing its oil from reaching port.
Iran’s military logic questioned
Simply striking greater numbers of replaceable vessels would not restore Iran’s leverage, the discussion suggested.
“They have attacked our military logic,” the main contributor said. “You have to hit this logic.”
The participant who opened the exchange said Iran’s problem was not a lack of political will, but its continued reliance on an approach that was no longer producing the intended outcome.
“There really is the political will to confront them. But because we are confronting them within the previous framework, we are not getting the result we want,” he said.
The main contributor described the problem as a “cognitive error.”
Another researcher and Middle East commentator Mustafa Najafi separately accused the UAE on X of spending weeks trying to reduce Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and seeking to move oil belonging to other countries through the waterway.
Najafi also accused Abu Dhabi of obstructing an Iran-Oman agreement on managing the strait and lobbying in the United States and Israel for attacks on Iran.
“After Israel, no actor dreams of weakening and disintegrating Iran as much as the UAE does,” Najafi wrote, arguing that Tehran should move beyond a solely political and diplomatic response.
The remarks reflect concern among Iranian pro-system experts that the UAE is seeking not to overcome Iran’s military power in the Strait of Hormuz, but to diminish the strategic leverage that power is intended to provide.
