Officials in Tehran claim calm, but prices tell another story

The mood appears to shift with perceived signals from Washington, where President Donald Trump this week hinted at a deadline for Tehran while repeatedly floating military options if a deal is not reached.

Asked on Friday whether a limited strike on Iran was under consideration, Trump replied: “I guess I can say I am considering that.”

The prospect of conflict has triggered widespread discussion online, where users express a mix of dread, anger, and resignation. While many fear the destruction war could bring, others describe it as an inevitable outcome of escalating tensions.

“Many of us are certainly worried about war,” one user from Iran wrote on X, “but we are more terrified of continuing to live alongside these killers who have no limits.”

“No war means the Islamic Republic stays,” another user wrote. “The choice is yours.”

Casualties—of war and protest

The killing of protesters during nationwide unrest in January, along with the wave of arrests that followed and worsening economic hardship, has left some Iranians deeply pessimistic about the country’s future under continued Islamic Republic rule.

One user arguing against those opposed to a US strike compared casualties from Iran’s recent war with Israel to deaths during domestic unrest.

“12 days at war with Israel—how many did we lose? About a thousand and something,” the user wrote. “On January 18 and 19 how many were killed? Tens of thousands; in two days! Now do you think there’s a less costly way than war to get rid of the monster?”

Skepticism about diplomacy appears widespread.

An online poll conducted by the conservative website Asr-e Iran found that nearly 80 percent of more than 27,000 respondents did not expect negotiations to produce an agreement. In another poll on the same site, more than 70 percent said they believed the United States was using talks primarily to prepare military forces in the region.

Online polls in Iran are informal and not scientifically representative, but they offer a snapshot of sentiment among politically engaged internet users.

“Friends who oppose war, why are you condemning the people?” one X user wrote. “Beg Khamenei to stop the war. The people didn’t bring the country to this point.”

‘Packing bags’

Alongside emotional reactions, some Iranians are taking practical steps in anticipation of possible conflict, sharing advice on storing food, securing essential supplies, and identifying safer areas outside major cities.

Similar patterns emerged during the brief but intense war with Israel last June, when many residents of Tehran left for northern provinces or smaller towns. Long lines formed at gas stations in the early days of that conflict, and parts of the capital were temporarily emptied.

Many also express concern over what they see as a lack of preparation by authorities, noting the absence of public shelters or clear guidance for civilians.

“The government’s reaction to war is indifference and irresponsibility,” one user wrote. “After packing a bag, what do we do? Where are we supposed to go?”

For many Iranians, the uncertainty itself has become a source of anxiety, as the threat of war—once abstract—now feels increasingly real.

The prime-time speech offers Trump his most prominent platform yet to signal whether he is still betting on diplomacy in the days ahead, or preparing the public for strikes if talks fail.

While advisers have urged him to focus on affordability, immigration and the economy ahead of November’s midterm elections, the buildup toward a potential confrontation with Iran has overshadowed the run-up to the address.

Mainstream outlets have widely previewed Trump’s State of the Union address, highlighting how he might frame Iran alongside domestic political pressures.

Reuters wrote that the speech could be Trump’s best opportunity to rally skeptical voters behind his approach to Iran, including the possibility of military strikes if negotiations fail.

Trump on Monday brushed aside reports of internal dissent about military action, writing on social media: “I am the one that makes the decision… if we don’t make a deal, it will be a very bad day for that country.”

Democrats have sharply criticized his approach. Senator Tim Kaine said Trump was “bumbling his way toward war,” arguing he had scrapped a 2015 nuclear agreement that had constrained Iran’s program.

Bloomberg similarly described Iran as a major flashpoint Trump may address as he seeks to reset the political narrative after domestic setbacks.

The Associated Press said the address offers Trump a chance to make his case for possible action against Iran, citing polling that shows broad public unease with his handling of foreign affairs.

Iran in past State of the Unions

References to Iran in State of the Union speeches have typically surfaced at inflection points–the hostage crisis, regional conflict and terrorism, nuclear negotiations, or moments when presidents sought public backing for a tougher coercive strategy.

In the Cold War alliance era, Iran appeared mainly as a country whose stability and relationships mattered to Western cohesion.

President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1955 State of the Union message cited “Britain and Iran” among nations that had “resolved dangerous differences,” framing Tehran in terms of security and diplomacy rather than direct confrontation with Washington.

After the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis, Iran became the crisis itself.

Jimmy Carter’s 1980 address opened by saying that 50 Americans were still being held in Iran, calling the episode “terrorism and anarchy” and warning that if the hostages were harmed, “a severe price will be paid.”

After 9/11, Iran references shifted into the terror-and-WMD architecture of US strategy, placing Tehran within a broader post-attack security doctrine.

In 2002 and 2003, George W. Bush repeatedly cast Iran as a serious security threat, famously labeling it part of the “axis of evil” and describing its government as pursuing weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorism and repressing its people, while distinguishing between the regime and Iranians who “speak out for liberty.”

President Barack Obama repeatedly used the address to press for diplomatic compromise while stressing that the United States would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

In 2014, Obama said diplomacy had halted the advance of Iran’s nuclear program, warned he would veto sanctions that could derail negotiations, and argued war should be a “last resort.”

In 2015 and 2016, he defended the nuclear agreement reached with Tehran, asserting that it had helped the world avoid another war.

During his first term, Trump invoked Iran to justify withdrawing from the 2015 deal and imposing sweeping sanctions under his “maximum pressure” campaign, portraying Tehran as a central destabilizing force in the Middle East.

In 2018, he said the United States stood with “the people of Iran” against a “corrupt dictatorship” and urged Congress to address what he called “the terrible Iran nuclear deal.”

In 2019, he called Iran the “world’s leading state sponsor of terror.” In 2020, he tied Iran to counterterrorism and deterrence, citing the killing of former IRGC-Quds commander Qasem Soleimani.

The pattern is consistent: presidents have used the nationally televised address to reset Iran policy at decisive moments–to sell diplomacy, justify confrontation, or redefine strategy.

Tuesday’s speech fits that same historical frame.

Habib Arian, a financial markets researcher, told ISNA that the turning point came on January 10, when the market recorded a one-day outflow of 9.4 trillion rials ($5.8 million), at the time the largest daily withdrawal of individual investor funds.

“That figure showed that trust, which is the main asset of the capital market, had been severely damaged,” Arian said. “From that date onward, the Tehran bourse was unable to return to an upward trajectory, and any positive fluctuation was treated as an opportunity to exit.”

Outflows accelerated as regional tensions intensified and speculation grew about possible confrontation between Iran and the United States. Investors shifted from equities toward hard assets, pushing the dollar above 1,650,000 rials and lifting domestic gold prices sharply.

Between January 8 and February 21, the benchmark index fell 15% while 18-karat gold posted a 33% gain over the same period. Gold-backed funds rose 20%, emerging as a primary destination for funds exiting equities.

“The 48-percentage-point gap between gold and stocks explains why liquidity has fled the equity market at this speed,” Arian said.

• 

  Money is leaving Iran faster as oil income falls and uncertainty mounts

• 

  Why Iran cannot stop its currency collapse

On Sunday alone, the main index shed another 103,000 points as retail investors pulled out a record 41 trillion rials ($25.3 million) in a single session, according to market data cited by Arian.

He said the stock market was now driven less by economic fundamentals than by political risk. “The market today is more hostage to political tensions and the shadow of war than to economic variables,” he said. “As long as geopolitical risks do not subside, the capital market will continue to act as a liquidity provider for parallel markets.”

The exodus from stocks comes against a backdrop of broader capital flight and currency weakness.

The rial has traded around 1,630,000 per dollar in recent weeks, reflecting deep structural imbalances, falling oil income and persistent uncertainty surrounding nuclear negotiations and sanctions.

Analysts say the combination of record outflows from equities, a weakening currency and rising demand for gold shows the erosion of investor confidence, with households and businesses seeking safety in assets perceived as more resilient to inflation and political shocks.

“In this environment, investors prefer the security of gold and dollar-linked assets to the ambiguity of shares,” Arian said.

In a striking break from convention, thousands of families gathering for 40th-day rituals in homes and cemeteries across the country in recent days replaced the traditionally solemn, religiously infused ceremonies with clapping, cheering, and dancing — open displays of defiance.

The iconoclastic ceremonies have angered state supporters. Alireza Dabir, a conservative politician and former wrestling champion, lashed out at grieving families. “Their children got killed and they’re dancing over the corpses. I can't help but take a dig at these useless people. May God give these useless people some brains,” he told reporters.

But for many mourners, the dancing is neither celebration nor denial. It is a refusal to grieve on prescribed terms. The music and dance have become a language of protest — one that transforms funerals into acts of collective memory and, perhaps, the foundation of a new tradition.

Raha Bohloulipour was 23, a student of Italian language at Tehran University. On social media, she wrote about justice and equality and appeared in videos laughing lightheartedly with friends. Before leaving home for what would be the last time, she posted a simple message on Instagram: “Woman, Life, Freedom forever.” She was shot on a street in Tehran.

At her 40th-day memorial in Firouzabad, her hometown in southern Iran, hundreds gathered as her parents danced solemnly to traditional Qashqai folk music, waving green kerchiefs — her favorite color. Some parents in other places danced as long as they could, then broke into tears and collapsed into the arms of relatives, wailing.

Mourners in Mobarakeh in central Iran danced to a pro-monarchy anthem in an act of defiance at the 40th-day memorial for protester Rostam Mobarakabadi, who was shot dead by security forces on January 9 in Esfahan.

The song references Kaveh the Blacksmith, a mythological figure who leads an uprising against the tyrant Zahhak.

Weddings at memorials

When a young unmarried person dies in Iran, families often erect a hejleh: a mourning display decorated with flowers, candles, mirrors, lights and framed photographs. The structure resembles a wedding canopy, symbolizing a life cut short before marriage.

This time, however, the symbolism has expanded beyond décor. Confetti was thrown into the air as women cheered and danced beside the grave of a young man, shouting, “There’s a wedding here.”

At another cemetery, a bride-to-be dressed in white danced and cried, waving her bouquet over a grave. Outside a shrine where only religious songs would once have been permitted, mourners danced with red kerchiefs to a pop song, blurring the line between wedding and wake.

Roots in ancient traditions

The fusion of music, mourning, and defiance is not entirely new in some tribal regions.

The Malekshahi and Shuhan tribes recently held a traditional Chamara ritual on the 40th day of Saeed Tarvand, a 33-year-old oil engineer and father of a three-year-old who was killed in Abadan.

A very large crowd dressed in mourning attire gathered in his village in Ilam province. A riderless horse with an empty, inverted saddle, adorned in black and red and flanked by rifles and cartridge belts, was paraded through the crowd. Drums beat, wind instruments known as sornai played solemnly, and men carrying sticks performed a symbolic war dance — an ancient choreography of sorrow and resistance.

Political defiance and divergence from state ideology

The memorials are highly charged political spaces. Mourners chant “Death to Khamenei", “Death to the Dictator”, and "Long Live the King”, referring to Prince Reza Pahlavi. Crowds also vow to continue the path of the fallen until “Iran is free” or until “the mullahs are in shrouds.”

Instead of clerical speeches and Quranic recitations, many families have chosen to read heroic verses from the Shahnameh, Iran’s national epic, invoking pre-Islamic symbols of resistance, or to sing revolutionary songs inspired by it.

At the 40th-day ceremony for 30-year-old truck driver Rostam Mobarakabadi, his mother held his photograph high above her head, stamping her feet resolutely and leading the crowd in a revolutionary song invoking “Kaveh the blacksmith,” a legendary symbol of uprising against tyranny.

In Firouzabad, Raha’s grandfather drew on a different literary reference. In his speech, he called her “The Little Black Fish,” the protagonist of a beloved children’s story about a curious fish who leaves her narrow stream to explore the world despite warnings and fear — a tale widely read as an allegory of individual freedom and courage.

The language, too, reflects a shift. Rather than calling the dead “martyrs” — shahid — many families now describe them as “javid-nam,” meaning their names will be eternal. The distinction between these matters greatly in a country where martyrdom is closely tied to state ideology. Authorities have reportedly banned the use of “javid-nam” on some gravestones, reinforcing the political weight of the term.

Mohammad-Javad Akbarin, a dissident Islamic scholar living in exile in France, said the 40th-day gatherings show that society is “dissociating itself from the state and the ideology that it promotes”.

“Instead of religious lamentations, it sings songs; instead of religion, it speaks of the homeland; and it describes its beloved not as shahid, but as one whose name will be eternal,” he told Iran International.

Multiple US outlets reported on Thursday that national security officials have informed President Donald Trump that the military has positioned the necessary air and naval assets in the region to carry out a strike “within days,” potentially even by the end of this week.

In Tehran, some analysts cautioned that the military moves could signal genuine escalation rather than routine pressure.

Political analyst Mohammad Soltaninejad told Entekhab: “If the negotiations fail or the US position changes—as happened before the 12-day war and in the middle of negotiations—it is possible that war could break out.”

Jalal Sadatian, a former Iranian ambassador to the United Kingdom, said in an interview with ILNA that war remains an unattractive option for regional states, particularly given the risk of US bases in those countries being targeted.

“The balance is still tilted somewhat more toward negotiation than toward war,” he said, arguing that Trump appears to be “more focused on threats and exercising pressure.”

‘Real’ prospect of war

The military buildup follows the second round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, which ended Tuesday in Geneva without tangible results. Cautious optimism expressed by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has not translated into broad confidence in Tehran.

Financial markets have reacted nervously. Iran’s currency weakened nearly one percent in a single day, with the dollar rising toward 1,630,000 rials, reflecting broader concerns about the risk of escalation.

Prominent economic outlet Eco Iran ran an editorial on Thursday titled Diplomacy Under the Shadow of Military Movements, arguing that US deployments are not merely a show of power but “a sign of maintaining operational readiness in case tensions escalate.”

International relations professor Gholamreza Haddad told Eco Iran that talks proceeding to a third round is not necessarily a positive sign. He said the scale of US deployments suggests “real preparedness for military conflict,” rather than merely a threat intended to extract concessions from Tehran.

Agreement ‘a miracle’

Nour News, a site close to senior security official Ali Shamkhani, went further, suggesting that Washington might opt for a limited, symbolic action to demonstrate readiness without entering full-scale war.

“This scenario would symbolically test Iran’s deterrence and demonstrate America’s power,” the editorial said, warning that “the scene stands on the brink of crisis.”

Iran has also demonstrated heightened military activity. Over the past two days, it has conducted exercises in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and a notice to airmen (NOTAM) was issued for a missile test in southern Iran scheduled for Thursday.

US affairs analyst Amir Abolfath delivered one of the more pointed warnings, calling a potential agreement “a miracle” and cautioning that sustaining any deal may prove even more difficult than reaching one.

“We may end up in war,” he told moderate outlet Khabar Online. “And even in the event of war, the problem may not be resolved.”