Iran International
The vicious debate over a free concert at Tehran’s most iconic square—and its eventual cancellation—has laid bare not only the rulers’ fear of spontaneous crowds but also deep rifts among Iranians themselves.
Supporters hailed the plan to feature renowned vocalist Homayoun Shajarian at Azadi (Freedom) Square as a rare chance for collective joy, while critics denounced it as a state ploy to deflect from the looming anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s death in custody.
Some urged Iranians to seize the event as a protest, while hardliners at home warned it would unleash unrest.
Shajarian, son of the late maestro Mohammad Reza Shajarian, announced on Instagram that after years of denials by the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance, he had finally been granted permission to hold a free public concert.
He described it as the fulfillment of an impossible dream.
“This concert is neither for anyone nor at anyone’s request. I stood with the people during the war with Israel, and now I just want to lift their spirits,” he said.
Sudden storm
Critics were quick to react.
“The Homayoun Shajarian 'concert' is not a concert—it’s a government project … Those who take part in it (under any pretext) are without question agents of the regime and its foot soldiers,” one posted on X.
Ultra-hardliners claimed the state lacked the security capacity to manage such a gathering.
Supporters countered that the city had organized vast religious rallies like the “10-Kilometer Ghadir Feast” even during the turmoil following the recent 12-day war with Israel.
Sadegh Koushki, a politician close to the ultra-hardline Paydari Front, condemned the idea, calling it a show of numbers meant to “extort revolutionary people and the Leader.”
Filmmaker Abolghasem Talebi warned the event would become “a display of nudity” and a launchpad for protests.
“A free concert in Freedom Square means lawlessness,” he said. “First Shajarian, then others. Gradually, we’ll face a coup of public squares through nudity and unveiled women—with government permission.”
Cancellation
By Wednesday, Shajarian admitted his worst fear had come true: the concert would not take place, and his “impossible dream” would remain out of reach.
Tehran’s ultra-hardline mayor, Alireza Zakani, said security authorities had rejected the plan because of “time constraints” and lack of preparation, proposing to move it to the 12,000-seat Azadi Stadium.
Municipality officials claimed they were only informed days earlier, but the government countered that preparations had long been under discussion.
Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said the administration had supported the event from the start, asserting that "millions" attending would have strengthened national unity.
Administration public relations chief Ali Ahmadnia said Freedom Square remained the priority but the 100,000-seat Azadi Stadium could serve as a fallback.
Shajarian has reportedly ignored officials’ calls, and many supporters on social media say they will not attend if the concert is not held at Freedom Square.
‘Problem lies elsewhere’
The cancellation itself became a new battlefield, as critics highlighted what it revealed about the establishment’s insecurity.
Many believe the decision stemmed from fear that massive crowds would dwarf the regime’s own rallies in Freedom Square, which often struggle to fill even with free transport, food, and mandatory attendance.
Sociologist Mohammad Fazeli ridiculed the municipality’s claim of being unprepared: “Fine, give them two weeks! If they’re not lying, they can prepare. Otherwise, their problem lies elsewhere.”
Veteran reformist Abbas Abdi, writing in Ham Mihan, argued that those in power fear the people more than foreign invasion. “Domestic warmongers and hardline opposition [abroad] alike oppose peaceful, joyful gatherings,” he wrote.
“From the start, I doubted authorities would accept such a security risk,” political analyst Omid Memarian told Iran International.
“The cancellation proves the regime lacks self-confidence and reveals the depth of the rift between people and the state.”
The formal start of the UN “snapback” process to restore sanctions, the latest critical report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and President Masoud Pezeshkian’s high-visibility diplomacy at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit together mark a decisive moment for Tehran.
The most immediate challenge is the likely restoration of UN snapback sanctions before 28 September.
European governments argue the trigger is Iran’s sustained non-compliance with key limits in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) over the past six years. Tehran rejects that position, insisting the E3 forfeited standing by failing to deliver promised economic normalization after Washington’s 2018 withdrawal.
Whatever the legal briefs, reinstated measures would effectively return Iran to a Chapter VII-related sanctions framework, with all the familiar consequences: renewed constraints on arms transfers, reinforced financial isolation, and fresh layers of economic restrictions that have already strained household incomes and the broader investment climate.
Scrutiny intensifies
New IAEA findings have sharpened scrutiny of Iran’s program.
The agency signaled fresh shortfalls in cooperation, pointing to unexplained inventories of enriched uranium at levels exceeding JCPOA caps.
A confidential tally circulated to member states indicated Iran holds about 441 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% or higher – enough, by the agency’s rule of thumb, to yield material for around ten nuclear devices if further refined.
Director General Rafael Grossi has said there is no sign of diversion, but emphasized the need for verification and timely documentation – something Iranian officials have yet to provide.
Rather than escalate immediately, the Secretariat has kept contacts open in hopes of restoring routine access. Two reports to the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors underline the urgency: inspections must resume “without delay,” and the buildup of highly enriched stocks remains a “serious concern.”
Eastward turn accelerates
It is against this tightening sanctions and verification backdrop that President Pezeshkian’s China tour looms large.
Over a week of meetings – most prominently with Xi Jinping in Beijing and Vladimir Putin in Tianjin – Tehran sought to translate a long-advertised “Look East” doctrine into concrete political and economic ballast.
Iranian officials pressed for more than sympathetic rhetoric: Moscow and Beijing are backing Iran’s claim that snapback is legally void but, crucially, Tehran hopes they avoid implementing any reimposed UN measures.
For China and Russia, the ask is non-trivial. Skirting U.S. and European unilateral sanctions is one thing; openly discounting UN obligations is another, with implications for their global positioning.
Still, Pezeshkian delivered a message calibrated for both audiences at once.
He reaffirmed Iran as a “reliable friend” to China, echoing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s priority on eastern partnerships. He also stressed Tehran’s readiness to operationalize the 25-year agreement with Beijing across energy, infrastructure, and technology.
The session with Putin amplified the signal: in Tehran’s view, China and Russia are no longer transactional partners of convenience, but strategic anchors to confront Western pressures.
Roadblocks remain
The SCO summit in Tianjin provided the showcase for this reorientation. Now a full member, Iran leaned into the organization’s language of sovereignty, non-interference, and resistance to unilateralism.
Yet the question of deliverables hangs over the pageantry.
Iran’s earlier eastward experiments, notably under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, yielded less than the rhetoric promised. Banking bottlenecks, compliance risks for major companies, and the gravitational pull of Western markets on Chinese firms limited follow-through.
Whether today’s geopolitical alignment—and the higher stakes of great-power competition—change those cost-benefit calculations is the live test.
For Tehran, success will be measured not in communiqués but in sustained energy sales, credible financing channels, technology transfers, and visible progress on infrastructure that can withstand sanctions headwinds.
Future hangs in balance
Inside Iran, the “Look East” pivot has sparked an energetic debate.
Hardline outlets herald the emergence of an “Eastern front” that validates decades of resistance to Western dominance. But reformist and moderate voices warn that the country risks swapping one form of dependence for another.
Their critique is less civilizational and more structural: if Iran becomes overly reliant on Moscow and Beijing for markets, capital, and diplomatic cover, it could re-create the asymmetries of influence that the 1979 Revolution sought to overturn.
In this reading, the pivot is a pragmatic hedge, but also a bargain that may constrain policy autonomy over time.
The central uncertainty is whether the “Look East” approach can move beyond symbolism and episodic deals to furnish the durable economic and technological lifelines Iran needs.
If it can, Tehran may blunt the effect of renewed UN measures and stabilize growth on an alternative platform. If it cannot, the pivot risks devolving into a slogan that masks deepening isolation and narrowing options.
As September advances toward the snapback deadline, Tehran stands at a genuine crossroads.
Choices made now – on access for inspectors, on the pace and level of enrichment, on the specificity of commitments with China and Russia – will shape not only Iran’s nuclear trajectory and economic survival, but also the character of its grand strategy for the remainder of Khamenei’s tenure.