More than 78,500 people have died in road accidents in Iran over four years, yet the government is seeking to delay new vehicle safety standards despite repeated warnings about the quality of domestically manufactured cars.
Road accidents killed 10,357 people in the first six months of the current Iranian calendar year, ILNA news agency reported on Sunday, November 8, citing figures released a day earlier by Iran's Forensic Medicine Organization.
The figure was down just 0.4 percent from 10,401 deaths during the same period last year.
Another 224,220 people injured in road accidents were referred to forensic medical centers during the six-month period, an increase of 10.8 percent from a year earlier.
Industry minister seeks delay in safety standards
Poor-quality vehicles, unsafe roads and ineffective public education are among the main causes of Iran's road safety crisis, according to critics who say authorities have failed to address the underlying problems.
Traffic police chief Teymour Hosseini has previously urged the Ministry of Industry and the National Standards Organization to improve vehicle safety, arguing that higher traffic fines alone cannot reduce fatalities without safer roads, better-equipped cars and stronger enforcement.
However, Industry Minister Mohammad Atabak asked First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref in a letter dated November 6 to postpone the implementation of new vehicle safety standards by at least one year.
Atabak cited foreign currency shortages, the country's emergency conditions and automakers' inability to invest in developing and redesigning vehicle platforms as reasons for the request.
If approved, the postponement would allow manufacturers to continue production under existing regulations, delaying an increase in mandatory vehicle standards from 85 to 122 requirements, along with new fuel consumption rules.
The proposed delay comes despite repeated warnings about vehicle safety and the country's persistently high road death toll.
"People die in road accidents because of their poor driving, and it has nothing to do with the quality of domestically manufactured cars," Mostafa Mirsalim, a member of Iran's Expediency Council, said on November 8.
Mirsalim also described criticism linking domestic vehicle quality to road fatalities as unfair accusations against automakers.
Road accidents kill 78,510 in four years
Annual figures from Iran's Forensic Medicine Organization show that road deaths rose from 16,778 in the year ending March 2022 to 19,490 in the year ending March 2023.
Fatalities reached 20,045 in the year ending March 2024, the highest figure in the five-year period, before falling to 19,435 in the year ending March 2025 and rising again to 19,540 in the year ending March 2026.
Together, road accidents killed 78,510 people between March 2022 and March 2026, with annual deaths exceeding 19,000 throughout the four-year period.
Iran launched a national "No to Accidents" campaign in 2025 to reduce traffic fatalities, but ILNA questioned whether short-term initiatives could address the scale of the problem.
"It is unrealistic to expect that short-term campaigns and general recommendations can contain a crisis rooted in a combination of human, technical, infrastructural and managerial factors," ILNA wrote.
The news agency called for measurable targets and deadlines for the institutions responsible for road safety, including the Ministry of Roads, the Road Maintenance and Transportation Organization, municipalities and emergency medical services.
Young adults account for largest share of deaths
People aged 18 to 24 accounted for the largest share of road fatalities during the first six months of the current Iranian year, with 1,868 deaths, representing 18 percent of the total.
Another 1,555 victims were aged 30 to 39, while 1,514 were between 40 and 49 years old.
The fatalities also included 455 children aged 10 or younger.
Health Minister Mohammad Reza Zafarghandi described the roughly 20,000 annual road deaths as one of Iran's demographic challenges on June 16. Zafarghandi had previously said that 26 percent of road accident deaths were preventable.
The high number of young victims also raises questions about the government's population policies, which emphasize increasing birth rates and supporting infertility treatment.
"Population growth policies cannot be limited to encouraging childbirth and supporting infertility treatment. Preserving the lives of people already living in the country is equally important," ILNA wrote.
A group of hardline women wearing white burial shrouds rallied outside the Revolutionary Guards headquarters in Tehran, accusing the armed forces of defying Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei amid demands for retaliation over threats against him.
The protest drew a sharp rebuke from Tabnak, a news website linked to Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Mohsen Rezaei, which published commentary accusing the demonstrators of turning against state institutions and warning that action against their movement had begun.
Protesters carried placards warning of threats to Khamenei’s life. “The Imam’s life is in danger. Act now. Tomorrow will be too late,” read one handwritten sign.
A yellow banner addressed military commanders, saying Khamenei’s October 31 order for an “immediate, effective strike without geographical limits” in response to threats remained unfulfilled. “They have threatened the Imam again!” it declared. “Obey before it is too late.”
A speaker over a loudspeaker cited Khamenei’s statement before protesters chanted: “Beware, O armed forces, of defying the leader! Shame on us [if we stand by]!”
An IRGC representative came out to address the protesters, delivering what he said was a message from the Guards commander. He said conditions prevented commanders from meeting them in person and urged them to leave: “This area is not safe. The enemy could exploit the situation at any moment. Please clear the area.”
A woman leading the protest then issued an ultimatum: “If the threat against the Imam’s life is not avenged within 24 hours, we sisters will turn this place into Fatima’s House of Sorrows,” invoking a Shiite symbol of mourning associated with the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter.
The hardliners previously held a similar rally outside the headquarters of Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff, where they described their sit-in protest as an “affectionate reprimand.”
They said they were tired of “empty boasts.” Their statement also equated calls for sustainable development and lasting peace with disarmament, arguing that such ideas were preventing military retaliation against the enemy, according to Ensaf News.
Journalist Masoud Kazemi told Iran International the group, known as Toueh, viewed itself as representing Mojtaba Khamenei’s positions and demanded full implementation of statements attributed to him.
Its demands included dissolving the Supreme National Security Council, and returning its powers to the supreme leader, Kazemi said. The protesters opposed negotiations and regarded those conducting them as traitors, he added.
The rally held on November 5 follows months of pressure from hardliners demanding revenge for Ali Khamenei’s killing in a February 28 airstrike. His son and successor pledged in July that retaliation would be carried out, intensifying pressure on officials pursuing diplomacy with Washington.
Tabnak quoted Hossein Soleimani, editor-in-chief of the IRGC-affiliated Mashregh News, identifying the protesters as the same group that previously occupied Ravagh-e Keshvardoust, a Tehran mourning site near where the former leader was killed.
In June, the site closed after the shroud-wearing hardliners staged a three-day sit-in demanding vengeance. The protesters had also called for the execution of officials involved in negotiations with the United States.
Soleimani accused the group’s leaders of convincing followers that virtually the entire establishment had betrayed the leader, nation and country. Their confrontation, he wrote, targeted state institutions rather than Israel or the United States.
He said the group had been monitored and repeatedly warned but had mistaken the Islamic Republic’s tolerance for permission to continue. Describing the movement as a worsening “cancerous tumor” requiring “surgery,” he added: “That surgery has already begun.”
The conservative newspaper Khorasan also criticized the rally, suggesting the women had either come to believe repeated accusations of betrayal against officials or were being deliberately fed selective information by a political faction exploiting their emotions to pressure commanders.
The hardliners’ ability to rally outside military headquarters stands in stark contrast to the treatment of anti-government protesters. Security forces have repeatedly used lethal force to suppress demonstrations across Iran, including during January’s protests and earlier waves of unrest, while loyalist demonstrators have been able to gather outside some of the country’s most sensitive military sites.
While Tehran celebrates Donald Trump's midterm defeat and the economic pain the Iran war has inflicted on Americans, soaring prices and stagnant wages are pushing ordinary Iranians deeper into a cost-of-living crisis at home.
Senior Iranian officials have come close to claiming credit for the Democrats' sweeping election victory, frequently pointing to US officials' acknowledgment that the war contributed to Republican losses.
Many Iranian newspapers have followed suit, dwelling on America's economic and political troubles while portraying Iran as a country growing stronger despite the war.
"Ever-Stronger Iran on the Road to Progress," one economic daily declared on its front page on Thursday. Another proclaimed "American Humiliation Continues," alongside a photograph of a seemingly dejected Trump.
The hardline daily Kayhan highlighted what it described as €127 billion in European losses resulting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, presenting the economic damage as a measure of Tehran's success.
Largely absent from those triumphant headlines was the economic crisis that matters most to ordinary Iranians: the soaring cost of living.
The labour-focused news agency ILNA offered a starkly different picture, reporting that the estimated cost of basic household necessities had nearly doubled in seven months to 85 million tomans a month, almost six times the monthly earnings of an ordinary worker.
Labour expert Hamid Haji-Esmaeili told ILNA that inflation had become "normalised" in the thinking of Iranian officials, criticising the government's inadequate response and calling for wages to be revised midway through the year.
Pay levels set at the beginning of the Iranian calendar year no longer reflected economic realities, he argued, warning that the crisis was no longer confined to low-income workers but also affected civil servants and large sections of the middle class.
Economist Ali Ghanbari, also quoted by ILNA, described Iran as facing a "livelihood crisis", warning of a severe decline in the purchasing power of lower-income households.
Another ILNA report highlighted delayed wage payments for contract workers in Iran's southern oil-producing regions, adding to the uncertainty facing employees already struggling with inflation.
Growing calls to expand food-support programmes suggest that wages alone are no longer sufficient to protect many households from the rising cost of essential goods.
Years of inflation, currency depreciation, sanctions and inadequate investment had already eroded living standards. Two rounds of war in 2025 and 2026, and the subsequent US blockade of Iran's maritime trade, have compounded those pressures.
The government's response has come under increasing criticism, particularly over its failure to adjust wages and pensions to reflect the rapidly rising cost of living.
Pensioners have been among the most vocal groups demanding action. ILNA reported calls for authorities to restore their purchasing power immediately, as housing, healthcare and other essential expenses consumed an increasing share of their incomes.
In another report, a representative of military pensioners' organisations criticised repeated discussions about wage increases that had produced no concrete results.
He warned against creating "false hope" among pensioners frustrated by promises of financial relief that have yet to translate into higher payments.
Pensioners are among Iran's more organised social groups and have staged repeated demonstrations in recent years over inadequate incomes and rising prices.
Yet the emphasis in hardline political rhetoric remains on the costs Iran has imposed on its adversaries.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on international energy markets have been presented as evidence of Tehran's leverage over Western economies.
Such claims of success sit uneasily alongside accounts of hardship emerging from Iran's own media, where journalists operate under restrictions on reporting deemed damaging to the Islamic Republic's image.
For workers awaiting overdue wages and pensioners demanding relief, the economic pain inflicted on Iran's adversaries offers little consolation. Their immediate concern is whether they can pay next month's rent and put food on the table.
Iranian commentators are divided over JD Vance's remarks on the political costs of the war with Iran, with some seeing evidence of tensions within the Trump administration and others warning that he may be trying to lure Tehran into a disadvantageous deal.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Vance identified ending the war and reassessing relations with Israel among the priorities of voters who supported Donald Trump in 2024 but switched to Democrats in Tuesday's midterm elections.
Iran's parliament speaker and chief negotiator, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, quoted Vance's post to challenge the Trump administration's approach to the war and its relationship with Israel.
Iranian media have since offered differing interpretations of Vance's intentions and his influence over US policy.
The analytical website Vana News said the vice president's remarks highlighted differences in how senior US officials assessed the costs and future of the war, but cautioned against interpreting them as evidence of an irreconcilable rift.
“Differences in perspective do not necessarily mean a breakdown in political cooperation or an irreconcilable conflict between the president and his deputy,” Vana News wrote, adding that it remained unclear whether such differences would affect Washington's policy decisions.
‘Self-interest’
Mohsen Zahedi-Movahed, a retired diplomat and international affairs analyst, was more emphatic.
“Vance's admission that the war was the first reason voters were angry with Republicans is extremely important. How will Trump respond? The divide they wanted to create among Iranian leaders has now come back to haunt them!” he wrote on X.
Ali Nasri, a pro-government commentator, argued that Vance's apparent differences with Trump over Israel predated the Republican election defeat.
“[Vance realised] that his own political future and the survival of the entire America First movement depend on distancing himself from Israel and ending the war with Iran,” Nasri wrote on X. “We paid a heavy price to reach this position of strength,” he added.
‘Prelude to war’
But Parisa Nasr, a hardline journalist, warned against interpreting Vance's remarks as an encouraging sign, describing them as “another episode in Vance's double game.”
She accused Vance of pursuing an electoral and geopolitical manoeuvre designed to appeal to American voters while encouraging Iranian officials who favour an agreement with Washington.
Nasr also linked the remarks to mediation efforts by Qatar and Pakistan, warning that Tehran could be drawn into an agreement that would leave it vulnerable to renewed conflict.
“Even if it leads to an immediate asymmetric agreement, it is a prelude to the next war and poses a very serious danger,” she wrote.
Diplomacy continues
Asked on Wednesday whether he agreed that the war had contributed to the Republicans' defeat, Trump said it was “largely true” but defended his decision to attack Iran, insisting that military action was necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The debate over Vance's intentions comes against the backdrop of a letter he sent in late October to Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, to which Tehran has not formally responded.
According to US media reports, Vance called for the immediate start of comprehensive negotiations, including on Iran's nuclear programme, and expressed his readiness to lead the American delegation in talks with Iranian officials.
Rezaei said on October 31 that he had read the letter, delivered through Qatar, but had not yet responded. He described its tone as different from previous communications from Washington, calling it “a good sign” that demonstrated Iran had consolidated its power.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei struck a more cautious note on November 2, saying Tehran would judge Washington by its actions rather than the tone of its letters.
President Donald Trump's sweeping midterm defeat has sparked a debate in Tehran over whether Iran should seize the opportunity to negotiate a deal with Washington or maintain pressure through its control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Reformist and pragmatic conservative publications have urged Iranian leaders to exploit the shifting political climate in the United States to secure economic concessions, while hardline outlets argue that Tehran should preserve its maritime leverage regardless of the election outcome.
The debate comes as Iran faces mounting economic pressure, with inflation nearing triple digits, industrial shortages and shipping restrictions disrupting supplies of essential goods.
Reformist newspaper Shargh focused on the country's economic struggles, welcoming Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's proposal for implementing de-escalation measures in the Strait of Hormuz within two days.
Pragmatic conservative Khorasan, which is close to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, urged lawmakers to pursue a negotiated settlement while ensuring parliamentary oversight of the proposed two-day mechanism.
The convergence suggests that support for exploring a deal extends beyond Iran's reformist camp, despite differences in political priorities.
‘Rescue the economy’
Sobh-e No, another conservative newspaper aligned with Ghalibaf, argued that Tehran should make the most of Trump's defeat to secure binding economic commitments.
Even Hamshahri, owned by the hardliner-led Tehran Municipality, called for swift diplomatic action, warning that shipping disruptions in the Persian Gulf were straining domestic supply chains and contributing to soaring food prices.
The US naval blockade has compounded Iran's economic crisis, effectively halting its oil exports and disrupting other maritime trade. Iran has not loaded oil for export since mid-August, according to shipping data from Kpler.
Together, these arguments reflect a calculation that Iran's maritime leverage may be more valuable if converted into immediate economic relief than maintained indefinitely.
‘Maintain pressure’
Hardline publications, however, showed little enthusiasm for changing Tehran's position.
Kayhan argued that the political balance in Washington had no bearing on what it described as Iran's "operational dominance" in Hormuz.
Javan similarly maintained that Tehran should continue using the strategic waterway to pressure Washington, regardless of which party controls Congress.
The English-language Tehran Times argued that the elections had changed neither Iran's ability to restrict maritime traffic nor its conditions for de-escalation.
Some conservative commentary also portrayed Vice President JD Vance's diplomatic outreach as evidence that the Trump administration was under pressure from high energy prices and difficulties securing maritime traffic.
Under this interpretation, the election results reinforced Washington's vulnerability but offered little reason for Tehran to soften its demands.
‘Beware miscalculation’
Other conservative publications struck a more cautious tone.
Resalat warned against assuming the election results would fundamentally change Washington's approach to Tehran, arguing that the United States remained an unreliable negotiating partner regardless of which party controlled Congress.
Jomhouri Eslami, meanwhile, cautioned that assuming Washington would indefinitely tolerate the closure of Hormuz could invite a wider regional war.
The competing assessments come as Tehran pursues diplomatic contacts beyond Washington.
On Thursday, Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow and delivered a message from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, Iranian state media reported.
The question facing Iranian policymakers is whether Trump's electoral setback offers a chance to secure concessions or whether maintaining pressure will yield better terms, and how long Iran can afford to wait.
Iranian hardliners are calling for continued pressure on Washington following the US midterm elections, arguing that the war has exacted a political price on Republicans but that Democratic gains offer little prospect of a change in US policy toward Tehran.
The argument featured prominently on Iranian state television on Thursday, where commentators urged Iran to maintain its leverage through the Strait of Hormuz, warning that easing pressure could allow the United States to continue its naval blockade even after the war formally ends.
Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei dismissed hopes that changes in the balance of power in Washington could lead to a softer American approach.
In a message published Wednesday to mark Iran's National Day of Fighting Global Arrogance, Khamenei described as "seriously mistaken" those who retain "even the slightest hope for a change in behavior or shifts in political parties and factions" in the United States.
He warned that even a limited inclination toward surrender would weaken the government's domestic support and encourage further American demands.
Keeping up the pressure
Vahid Khazab, a regular panellist on the state television programme Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time), said Democrats were unlikely to oppose the US naval blockade of Iran on principle.
"I have not heard anyone come forward and say that a naval blockade is wrong," he said. "They would not oppose a blockade unless it became costly too."
Khazab argued that Iran should keep the Strait of Hormuz completely closed to make the US naval blockade as costly for Washington as the war itself, warning that the blockade's continuation could effectively prolong the conflict even after hostilities formally end.
The remarks reflected an argument among hardline commentators that Tehran should preserve its economic and strategic leverage rather than interpret the Democratic victories as an opening for compromise.
Claiming a political victory
Senior Iranian officials and pro-establishment media have portrayed the Democrats' gains as a consequence of the political and economic costs of the war.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, wrote on X that Iran had inflicted a strategic defeat on Trump on the battlefield and in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as a political defeat in Washington.
The hardline newspaper Javan, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, declared that "Iran won the election in America," describing the Democratic victory as a political aftershock of Trump's conduct of the war.
Khazab pointed to rising gasoline, diesel and fertiliser prices, arguing that the war had contributed to Republican losses in agricultural states such as Iowa and Kansas.
"What caused the high prices of gasoline, diesel, and chemical fertilizers?" he asked. "Was it Trump's personality? Was it Trump's corruption and that of his sons? Was it Elon Musk? No, it was the war."
The programme's presenter said the significance of the elections lay not in a Democratic victory but in "the defeat of the Republicans because of the policies they adopted" toward Iran.
No expectations of Democrats
The commentators also warned against repeating what they regarded as misplaced optimism following Joe Biden's victory over Trump in 2020.
Nima Akbarkhani, another regular panellist, criticised reformists who had expected Biden to restore the 2015 nuclear agreement after Trump withdrew from it in 2018. Although Biden returned the United States to several international agreements abandoned by Trump, his administration did not rejoin the nuclear deal.
"Why didn't he return to the JCPOA?" Akbarkhani asked, referring to the agreement by its formal abbreviation. "Because they were telling themselves that this was once again the time to enter new negotiations and secure further concessions."
Mohammad Saleh Jowkar, a member of parliament, echoed Khamenei's warning in comments to the Mehr News Agency.
"It is absolutely unacceptable for some to assume that the arrival of the Democrats, a change in the composition of the US Senate or House of Representatives, or political developments in that country have created conditions for negotiations and concessions," he said.
Khazab added that the US elections were worth examining, if only because "understanding the enemy's camp is essential," he said.
