Iran International
A senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader has suggested Iran may reconsider its restrictive social policies in the aftermath of the war with Israel in a remark seen by Tehran media as a rare official acknowledgement of public discontent.
“Maintaining national cohesion, as emphasized by the Supreme Leader, can include changing certain social approaches of the establishment and prioritizing public satisfaction in a way that is tangible for the people,” former foreign minister Ali-Akbar Velayati posted on X on Monday.
“The people have proven themselves—now it is the officials’ turn. Outdated methods will no longer be effective for the post-war society," he added, without detailing the nature of the proposed reforms.
Will to change?
The reformist daily Shargh was quick to highlight the significance.
“This message is not only a confirmation of the need for transformation but could also be a sign of a serious resolve to begin a new chapter in policymaking and decision-making in Iran,” an editorial read.
It suggested Velayati’s comments “may indicate a high-level political will to move toward structural reforms.”
Velayati’s words carry unusual weight because he remains one of the most trusted figures in Khamenei’s inner circle.
His shift in tone—departing from Tehran’s usual confidence in its popular legitimacy—has been read by some as a sign of deeper anxiety following the recent 12-day war with Israel.
Losing grip?
That conflict briefly united many Iranians in the face of an external threat. But now, with the ceasefire holding, there are signs that public frustration is again surfacing—especially as calls for reform remain unanswered.
“The firm stance of the people against Israel came from their concern for their homeland, not satisfaction with the Islamic Republic,” civil engineer Milad Salehi commented on Velayati’s post—which drew more than a thousand comments.
Even before the war, the state’s grip on some aspects of public life—most notably enforcement of the mandatory hijab—had already begun to slip.
In recent weeks, Iran’s reformists have demanded steps such as easing internet restrictions, relaxing hijab enforcement, releasing political prisoners, and curbing hardline institutions like the state broadcaster and the Guardian Council.
But the leadership has instead retrenched: Khamenei recently reappointed 99-year-old ultra-conservative Ahmad Jannati to head the Guardian Council, while Friday Prayer leader Kazem Seddiqi returned to the pulpit despite a corruption scandal involving his family.
'Too little too late'
Such moves have deepened skepticism even among moderate voices who backed Masoud Pezeshkian as a “last hope for change” in the face of widespread indifference.
“In a country where the president … cannot, even after a year, fulfil the simplest of his campaign promises … reform is not a matter of time; it is impossible,” outspoken IT professor Ali Sharifi-Zarchi posted on X.
“Iran’s political structure must change,” he added, quoting Pezeshkian’s post.
Mohsen Mahdian, a mechanical engineer, captured that mood with a stark metaphor under Velayati’s post: “When the pillars of a house start to collapse... it must be demolished and rebuilt."
"The time for change and reform was years ago—but you turned a deaf ear back then.”
“The issue with Trump and Netanyahu is not assassination, but the implementation of justice,” Kayhan wrote Wednesday, also referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday that the Islamic Republic does not seek to kill anybody abroad.
"This is not our policy to kill anybody outside Iran, let alone the president of another country," he said, though clerics have issued fatwas calling for his death.
A hardline Iranian cleric close to Iran’s Supreme Leader called on Muslims to kill US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in June in response to their threats against Khamenei.
The call came days after Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi and Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani issued separate fatwas against Trump and Netanyahu.
Shirazi said in his statement: “Any regime or individual threatening the leaders of the Islamic Ummah (nation) and acting on those threats qualifies as a mohareb.”
Kayhan described both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as corruptors on earth and mohareb (enemy of God), terms which if invoked in fatwas or decrees under Shi'ite jurisprudence make it religiously obligatory for devout Shi'ite Muslims to act.
The penalty for the crimes in the Islamic Republic's theocratic system is death.
Kayhan also denounced Araghchi’s comment that “this has never been Iran’s policy to wipe out Israel from the map,” calling the comment “against the country’s official and strategic positions.”
The paper cited statements by the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ruhollah Khomeini, who said Israel “must vanish from the page of time,” as well as Khamenei’s 2015 vow that “Israel will not see the next 25 years.”
The backlash follows criticism from the Revolutionary Guards-affiliated Fars News Agency, which said Araghchi’s recent remarks admitting damage to the country's nuclear facilities and enrichment risked projecting weakness in the wake of the war with Israel.
“Our facilities have been damaged – seriously damaged,” Araghchi said in his interview after US strikes on the country's three main facilities were said to have "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program, according to Trump. “The extent of which is now under evaluation … enrichment has currently ceased."
Fars also faulted him for dismissing clerical fatwas targeting Trump, saying that to deny it undermines national resolve.
In January, Iran's President, Masoud Pezeshkian, said that Iran “never attempted” to kill Trump, “and we never will.”
According to the UN International Organization for Migration, nearly 700,000 Afghans were deported from Iran in the first half of 2025. A full 130,000 were expelled within just one week after the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. Many had lived in Iran for decades.
Far from an aberration, the recent wave of arrests, public humiliation and mass expulsions of Afghan migrants is a continuation of Tehran's decades-old political manipulation of one of the most vulnerable populations in the region.
The Islamic Republic's founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini famously declared that "Islam has no borders" and welcomed Afghan refugees fleeing a Soviet invasion in 1979.
But beyond this ideological gesture, Tehran never offered a clear legal or humanitarian framework for integration. Millions of Afghans entered Iran, only to be denied citizenship, legal employment or access to education and healthcare.
Over the decades, Afghan migrants have been treated as expendable tools in Tehran’s shifting policies in the region.
They were recruited to fight in Syria as part of the “Fatemiyoun” Brigade, exploited as cheap undocumented labor inside Iran and periodically threatened with mass expulsion in bouts of official populism.
During moments of domestic discontent, Afghan migrants became convenient targets to deflect public anger.
Under President Ebrahim Raisi, the policy of exploitation took on new dimensions. In the wake of the Taliban's return to power in 2021, a massive influx of Afghan refugees entered Iran and as many as around two million Afghans crossed the border within two years.
Rather than developing a comprehensive migration policy, Tehran allowed its border regions to turn into chaotic transit points run by smugglers and corrupt officials.
Xenophobia
In the aftermath of Israel’s devastating strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites, domestic frustration reached boiling point.
The Islamic Republic, seeking to redirect the public's discontent, amplified xenophobic narratives portraying Afghans as a threat to national security.
Despite isolated claims of rising crime among Afghans, official figures show otherwise.
Iran's judiciary reports that Afghan nationals comprise only about 6% of the prison population—roughly in line with their proportion of the total population. The majority of these arrests are for undocumented entry or labor violations, not violent or organized crime.
Ghosts of policies past
In 2001, following the fall of the Taliban, I traveled to the border town of Taybad and the nearby Islam Qala crossing and I was able to personally witness the brutal consequences of this policy.
There, I saw mass graves of Hazara refugees who had been forcibly returned by the Islamic Republic and summarily executed by Taliban fighters in the deserts surrounding the town.
Tehran knew that these Shia Hazaras were at extreme risk, yet still arrested them in Iranian cities, detained them in camps in the east and deported them into the hands of their eventual killers. This memory haunts me to this day.
The recent expulsions have also generated heartbreaking testimonies. Haajar Shademani, a 19-year-old Afghan born in Shiraz, told AFP she was forced to leave the only home she ever knew.
Denied access to Iranian universities and now blocked from education under Taliban rule, she faces an uncertain future.
The Islamic Republic’s interference in Afghanistan has extended far beyond its borders. Over the past two decades, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), through its Ansar Corps based in eastern Iran, has pursued an interventionist policy in Afghan affairs.
Military and intelligence advisors operated on the ground while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs established a dedicated Afghanistan Affairs Office, often in conflict with the IRGC’s goals.
These interventions disrupted Afghanistan’s internal balance and forced thousands more civilians to flee.
Moreover, Tehran deliberately resettled the families of Afghan political and military elites inside Iran, creating dependencies that undermined Afghan sovereignty.
This too was part of a broader strategy: open-door policies were never humanitarian in intent—they were designed to serve Iran’s strategic interests.
As Tehran continues to wage psychological warfare against Afghan migrants, reports of mob violence, arson, and public beatings have become more frequent.
In this climate of state-sanctioned hostility, ultra-conservative media figures portray any defense of Afghan rights as treason.
Policymakers and human rights advocates in Washington and European capitals should call out Tehran's exploitation of Afghan refugees.
This community is not a plaything—Afghans are survivors of a conflict-plagued country, and their dignity must not be sacrificed for political expediency.
Afghan migrants deserve justice, protection, and the chance to live free from fear—not another generation of displacement and death.