Iran International
Iranian citizens warn the country’s new hijab law will tighten restrictions on personal freedoms while also serving as a tool for state-driven financial exploitation.
In response to Iran International’s inquiry about how the new "Hijab and Chastity" bill will affect daily life in Iran, hundreds of voice messages from within the country reveal widespread frustration. Many of the respondents connected the legislation to broader grievances about the government’s misplaced priorities.
The 'Hijab and Chastity' bill has been approved by both Parliament and the Guardian Council and is now awaiting formal enactment by key officials, including the President. Meanwhile, enforcement of existing hijab regulations has intensified, with high-profile cases highlighting the state’s continued focus on regulating women’s public behavior.
To protect respondents from potential retaliation by Iranian authorities, their names have been withheld.
Many respondents accused the Islamic Republic of using the new law to deflect attention from its domestic failures. They also condemned the state’s financial and military support for allies like Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and groups labeled as terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah and Hamas, saying that prioritizing these entities has long neglected the urgent and enduring needs of Iranian citizens.
The new hijab law imposes fines for repeated violations. Women receiving two text message warnings may face fines up to $213 (150 million rials). Fines escalate to $2,347 (1.65 billion rials) for severe breaches. Those who fail to pay may be barred from accessing administrative, financial, and social services.
One individual alleged the government exploits women through these hijab fines to fund its proxy forces, telling Iran International: "You fired the missiles, Hezbollah used up the ammunition, Hamas’s entire weapons system was destroyed, and its warehouses were wiped out. Now, you’ve put all of it on the tab of Iran’s women and girls. This is not a hijab law—this is outright theft from the people, plain and simple, in broad daylight, and through women."
State officials have long maintained that the current hijab law, as well as the new one, is essential for upholding Islamic values and preserving societal morality. Mandatory hijab regulations were first enforced following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, with formal implementation beginning in 1983.
Another individual connected the law to frustrations over Iran’s domestic and foreign policies, describing it as a distraction from the government’s failures. They asserted, "The Islamic Republic has lost Syria and Lebanon, has nothing else left, and has been humiliated in the global community. Now, it wants to take out its frustration on the people of Iran. The disgraceful hijab bill was passed by representatives who are not representatives of the people. Half of the society did not vote for them, and they represent the corrupt system of the Islamic Republic. This bill has been written based on the governments and laws of extremist regimes like the Taliban and ISIS. They claim to be separate from them, but they are the same—part of those cursed and condemned extremists."
In several voice messages, Iranians described the financial penalties as a cynical attempt to extract revenue from citizens. They argued that the fines are simply a means for a financially struggling government to generate income.
"The real issue here is money. They are only interested in extorting people by any means possible. Just look at these past few years—they have tried to extract money from people in every way imaginable…Now, they have realized that the women and girls of Iran are standing firm and will not surrender, they thought to pass some ridiculous laws to at least make some profit out of this," one individuals said.
With average monthly salaries in Iran ranging between $170 and $200, respondents also criticized the fines as unrealistic and infeasible.
"Look at the situation of the Iranian people today—thanks to the system they have created, how many of them even have that amount in their accounts? How do they expect people to pay such fines? Even those who might have this money will not give it to them," one respondent said.
Another Iranian pointed out the challenges of imposing fines in a context where economic hardships prevent many from affording basic necessities, arguing: "These actions regarding hijab are not laws. This is coercion. They realized they could not enforce it with the morality police, violence, and all the other measures. Now they have resorted to imposing fines. They have involved themselves in such matters while ignoring more critical issues. By God, they should care about the people's food and medicine.Yesterday, I went to the pharmacy, and I swear there was hardly any medicine available... People are crushed under the weight of this unbearable cost of living."
For many respondents, the new hijab law seemed to reflect the state’s continued emphasis on social control over addressing urgent issues such as inflation, medicine shortages, and declining living standards.
According to the law, vehicles involved in hijab violations can be impounded for up to a week. For individuals who rely on their vehicles for their livelihood, this has devastating consequences.
"The hijab and chastity law is just one of the things that has severely affected me. For a week now, they have impounded my car in the parking lot. They have taken away my livelihood. I am a driver who can no longer afford my expenses," one citizen said.
The law encourages and allows citizens to report hijab violations through a police-managed platform, raising concerns for some Iranians about its broader societal impact.
Some Iranians also argued that the law’s divisive and oppressive nature is yet another tool by the state to suppress dissent.
“The people will not tolerate oppression, nor will they betray one another. Why would they? These authorities think freedom is just about hijab, but they fail to understand that the freedom we demand is also about ending inflation and making life affordable,” said one respondent.
Despite the law's provisions, many citizens told Iran International that they will resist its enforcement.
One individual emphasized the need for collective action: "We, the people, must oppose this disgraceful bill in any way we can—through hashtags, phone calls, strikes, protests—whatever means we have."
Others warned that the government’s focus on such laws could backfire: "Even the Islamic Republic knows that with this bill, and just one week of its implementation, it has dug its own grave. Enough is enough."
Many Iranians argued the government is increasingly disconnected from its people's priorities, while it is increasingly reliant on coercion to maintain control. Some also suggested that the enforcement of the law could potentially become a catalyst for further dissent.
The law is scheduled to be referred to President Masoud Pezeshkian on December 13, who will have five days to sign and implement it.
In a press briefing in Tehran on Monday, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said external influences in Syria exacerbate the situation, not acknowledging the influence Iran has wielded since the civil war of 2011.
“Any insecurity in Syria will not remain confined to that country,” Baghaei said, indirectly highlighting Turkey’s involvement without naming it explicitly. Meanwhile, Russia has also had a profound influence in the country since the civil war, as the countries all vie for power.
Baghaei described the continued presence of external actors, including the United States, as a major destabilizing factor.
“The US presence in Syria is an act of aggression that has only fueled the resurgence of terrorist activity,” he said.
The comments follow Syria's most significant rebel offensive in years. Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Islamist militant group, led an operation that seized large portions of Aleppo, Syria's second-largest city. The offensive also extended into neighboring Hama province, marking the Assad government's most significant territorial loss in years. The government is backed by Iran and Russia.
In response, Syrian forces, supported by Russian airstrikes, launched a counteroffensive to reclaim the lost territories. The Russian defense ministry confirmed that its air force had been targeting rebel positions, describing the situation as the most substantial challenge to Syrian government forces in recent years.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov reaffirmed Russia's support for Bashar al-Assad during his routine Monday morning press conference.
At least 25 people were killed in northwestern Syria in airstrikes conducted by the Syrian government and Russia, according to the White Helmets, a rescue service operating in opposition-held areas, early Monday.
Military sources reported that Russian and Syrian jets targeted the rebel-held city of Idlib on Sunday.
Baghaei also called Iran's archenemy Israel a benefactor of the chaos, saying that “the main beneficiary of insecurity in Syria and the region is Israel.” It comes as Israel remains at war with Iran's allies including Hamas in Gaza and until last week's ceasefire, Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The spokesperson reaffirmed Iran’s “advisory presence” in Syria, insisting it is at the invitation of the Assad government, in spite of the presence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Syria.
“This is not new; we’ve been there since the Syrian people faced terrorism,” he said, dismissing speculation that Iran might scale back its role.
The IRGC's involvement extends beyond advisory functions, encompassing direct military engagement and the mobilization of allied militias.
The IRGC, deemed a terrorist organization by countries including the US and Canada, has been instrumental in organizing and commanding various militia units within Syria, contributing significantly to the Assad regime's efforts to regain and maintain control over contested regions.
Baghaei, speaking about Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's consultations in Syria and Turkey, said: "In Syria, the goal was to convey Iran's message of support for Syria and the resistance to Syrian officials and to conduct a precise assessment of the latest situation in Syria.”
Araghchi arrived in Turkey early Monday morning as the second destination of his regional tour. Upon his arrival, he commented on his upcoming meeting with Turkish officials, saying: "I will have an extensive meeting with the Turkish foreign minister. There are mutual concerns that need to be discussed."
"Our consultations with Turkey have always addressed various issues. While there are often points of agreement, there are also occasional differences, which is natural and requires dialogue. I hope to reach a unified understanding and agreement on regional issues that will lead to regional stability, preventing Syria or the region from becoming a hub for terrorists again."
Regarding his meeting with Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, Araghchi said that he conveyed Iran’s comprehensive support for Assad, the Syrian government, and the army.
Patel, a former prosecutor and senior intelligence official during Trump’s presidency, has been an ardent critic of the Biden administration’s policies toward Tehran, accusing them of empowering the Islamic Republic through financial and strategic concessions.
In an interview with Fox Business in March, Patel said, “President Biden gave Iran $7 billion and opened up the global financial oil trade sector to them to make another $80 billion.”
He was referring to Iranian funds blocked by South Korean banks that the US asked to be released and deposited in special accounts in Qatar after Iran released five Americans held in Iran for several years.
“This allowed all their foreign partners, like the CCP and Russia, to get in on the action," he said referring to the Chinese Communist Party.
"It’s an intentional dereliction of duty to allow Iran back into the global scene and allow Iran to re-enter their nuclear deal. Remember, this program, architected by Obama and Biden and pushed out by Harris, …is meant to give them a nuclear weapon on a timeline,” he added.
Patel, if confirmed, would replace Christopher Wray seven years before the end of his term, underscoring Trump’s willingness to reshape the FBI’s leadership to align with his administration’s priorities.
The FBI director typically serves a single 10-year term to insulate the agency from political influence. However, Trump’s firing of James Comey in 2017 signaled his readiness to exercise authority over the bureau's leadership.
Critics of Patel’s appointment have voiced concerns over the potential politicization of the FBI, noting his close ties to Trump and his outspoken stances on divisive policy matters.
A hawkish perspective on Iran
Patel’s track record suggests his leadership would bring a hawkish approach to countering Iranian influence.
Speaking in March, Patel criticized the Biden administration’s renewal of sanctions waivers on Iran, describing it as a form of appeasement. “You are either for the mullahs and ayatollahs in Iran or you are against them,” he said in another Fox Business appearance.
“The Trump administration was wholly against them, withdrew from the JCPOA, used suffocating sanction to ensure they did not monetize their oil regime to enrich their weapons-grade nuclear program. That’s the ultimate deterrent.”
He further questioned Biden’s assertion that the funds released were intended for humanitarian aid, suggesting they indirectly financed groups like Hamas, which Patel called an Iran-funded organization.
Patel has also drawn attention for his allegations about pro-Islamic Republic operatives embedded within the Biden administration. He pointed to individuals like Robert Malley, Ariane Tabatabai, and Maher Bitar as examples of this influence, citing communications between Tabatabai and Iranian officials.
“Robert Malley, Biden's number one envoy, the guy that's supposed to be keeping us out of war in Iran, had his clearance, security clearance suspended by Chris Ray's FBI... You got to ask why they won't publicly release it.”
“Well, let me tell you why. Because an individual named Arianne Tabatabai, who, by the way, is currently running our special operations office at the Department of Defense was installed there by Robert Malley. Yes, the former presidential envoy to Iran installed this Iranian national to that position in DoD. And do you know what she did in 2014? She emailed the the foreign minister of Iran, Javed Zarif, and asked for permission as a US citizen to take a trip on behalf of the US government,” he added.
If confirmed, Patel could lead the FBI in intensifying its focus on Iranian activities within the US, including efforts to counter espionage, influence operations, and cyber threats.
For Iran, Patel’s nomination would likely signal a heightened US effort to counter its global influence, reinforcing Trump’s legacy of prioritizing Tehran as a primary adversary in American foreign policy.
A notable example of such remarks is former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement advocating for "wiping Israel off the map." Many believe this comment significantly escalated hostility between Iran and Israel, though it was rooted in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s stance toward the Jewish state.
Ahmadinejad is also known for dismissive remarks about the significance of UN resolutions against the Islamic Republic, which ultimately led to economic sanctions that severely affected Iranians' livelihoods for nearly 15 years.
Former reformist lawmaker Mohsen Mirdamadi has emphasized that Iranian officials must refrain from making such statements to support and advance diplomatic efforts with the West.
Although some Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, do not have official spokespersons, Iranian media often publish statements by lower-ranking officials that can undermine state affairs and disrupt the leadership's plans for advancing their agenda.
The absence of an official spokesperson for Khamenei recently sparked controversy in the Iranian parliament over whether Vice President Mohammad Javad Zarif should be dismissed, as demanded by his ultraconservative lawmakers. Earlier, Mehdi Fazaeli, a senior official in Khamenei's office, quoted the Supreme Leader as opposing challenges to Zarif's qualifications. However, ultraconservatives argued that Fazaeli was not an authorized spokesperson for Khamenei, casting doubt on the statement's credibility.
In 2018, the Iranian government under former President Hassan Rouhani went without a spokesperson for 179 days—just one day short of six months. At the time, the conservative Mehr news agency sharply criticized Rouhani, claiming that his failure to appoint a spokesperson signaled an unwillingness to be accountable to public opinion.
However, it is not clear is certain provocative statements are the result of bad judgement or are designed to give mixed signals to both the Iranian public and foreign audiences.
In a recent example of issuing statements seemingly at odds with the government's broader policies, Iran's nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, announced, "We have begun injecting gas into several thousand advanced centrifuges, which is part of the nuclear industry's development program, and have put them into operational circuits." This remark appeared to disregard the fact that it directly contradicted a recent IAEA resolution condemning Tehran for violating its international obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal, and the government’s declarations that does not seek nuclear weapons.
The statement was made two days before a meeting with the United Kingdom, France and Germany to reduce the tensions between Tehran and European powers.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has an official public relations office led by a chief who acts as a spokesperson. However, various commanders frequently make incendiary statements that do not necessarily align with the policies of the government or the IRGC itself. In recent months, while Khamenei has occasionally been cautious to avoid provoking Israel or the West, IRGC officers have repeatedly issued threats. At times, total news blackouts on military or nuclear issues suggest that orders for silence may have come from higher authorities. Yet, these periods of quiet are often short-lived, as outspoken officers tend to make remarks at any moment.
In an interview, Mirdamadi emphasized that Iranian officials and military commanders should refrain from making costly remarks, particularly on foreign policy matters. He stated, "They often chant impractical slogans, leaving the nation to bear the heavy consequences of mistakes it did not commit. In the recent incident leading up to the IAEA resolution, some politicians made unnecessary but highly damaging statements."
Mirdamadi was referring to remarks like the one made by former deputy judiciary chief Mohammad Javad Larijani who suggested that Iran can make a nuclear bomb in 24 hours.
Mirdamadi also criticized Iran's approach, stating, "We should neither underestimate nor overrate the country's capabilities. We need to be realistic and recognize that Iran cannot singlehandedly change the world order. There are matters beyond Iran's power or authority, and it is not in our interest to define the country's priorities in a way that necessitates confrontation with other nations, particularly major powers."
Ironically, Mirdamadi himself was one of the leaders of the Iranian students who occupied the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding over 50 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, an incident that set the country on its course of foreign confrontations.