|
Please also see our latest Human Rights Tracker below on the UN Human Rights Council's Latest Resolution Adopted on Iran.
Week of January 19, 2026 | Iran Unfiltered is a digest tracking Iranian politics & society by the National Iranian American Council
After nearly a month of unrest, Iran has entered a phase marked less by visible street mobilization than by post-protest consolidation of power, sustained repression, and an intensified struggle over narrative and accountability. The relative calm observed in many cities does not indicate political resolution; rather, it reflects the state’s reassertion of control through mass arrests, prolonged communication shutdowns, judicial pressure, and systematic intimidation of families, journalists, and civil society actors.
A central feature of this phase has been the emergence of competing and deeply divergent casualty narratives. Official bodies affiliated with the Iranian government, including the National Security Council, have stated that 3,117 people were killed during the peak days of violence on January 8–9. According to this account, 2,427 of those killed were described as “innocent civilians” or “security and order-protecting forces,” while the identities and circumstances surrounding 690 additional deaths were left unspecified. Senior officials—including the President and the Supreme Leader—have framed the violence as the result of organized unrest, foreign-backed “terrorism,” and an attempted destabilization of the state.
In contrast, independent human rights organizations have documented a substantially higher toll while stressing the limits imposed by the near-total information blackout. According to the most recent cumulative data published by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which works to confirm its counts via at least one credible source:
- 5,002 deaths have been individually confirmed
- 9,787 additional death cases remain under review
- 26,852 arrests have been documented nationwide
- 7,391 individuals have sustained severe injuries
- 192 cases of forced confessions have been broadcast by state media
HRANA emphasizes that these figures represent minimum verified counts, not final totals. Its case-by-case documentation methodology, cross-verification of sources, and transparent categorization have led many observers to regard HRANA’s data as more methodologically credible than official aggregate figures released without supporting detail. The continued communications blackout suggests that the true scale of casualties and detentions may only emerge later.
At the same time, Iran Human Rights decided to halt its ongoing effort to publish death tolls because the scale of the killings and severe communication restrictions have made it impossible to meet its evidentiary standards, which require multilayer verification and confirmation by at least two independent sources. In its most recent statistical report, the organization confirmed at least 3,428 killed protesters, while stressing that this figure likely falls well below the true death toll.
Alongside efforts to fix a definitive death toll, the authorities have intensified post-event repression. Security-linked media outlets report the arrest of hundreds of alleged protest “leaders” across multiple provinces. State television and affiliated platforms have simultaneously released large volumes of televised “confessions,” a practice long criticized by rights groups as a violation of due process and human dignity. These broadcasts function less as judicial evidence than as tools of deterrence, intimidation, and narrative control.
The prolonged nationwide internet shutdown—now entering its third consecutive week—has become a defining element of this phase. Senior officials have offered no clear timetable for full restoration, instead indicating that any return of access will be partial, controlled, and conditional. Beyond restricting reporting and verification, the shutdown has imposed significant economic, social, and psychological costs, deepening public mistrust and isolation.
Against this backdrop, internal political and moral dissent has become increasingly explicit. A group of Iranian political and cultural figures identifying themselves as advocates of political transition (“گذارطلب”) issued an open letter addressed to the public that explicitly calls for the resignation or removal of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The letter condemns what it describes as the “brutal mass killing” of protesters and argues that lifelong, absolute rule has locked the country into recurring cycles of repression, bloodshed, and institutional failure.
Crucially, the signatories frame their demand not as an appeal for foreign intervention or disorder, but as a proposal for a structured political exit from the crisis. They outline a roadmap centered on:
- Formation of a broad national alternative
- A public referendum
- Establishment of a constituent assembly
- Drafting of a new constitution
In doing so, the letter represents one of the most direct challenges to Ali Khamenei’s leadership to emerge from within Iran’s political and intellectual sphere in recent years, elevating the protest crisis from a question of repression to one of systemic legitimacy.
Additional dissent has emerged from within the religious establishment. The Association of Seminary Teachers and Researchers in Qom has urged authorities to treat detainees with clemency and restraint, explicitly stating that “violence is not an answer to violence.” The group has questioned whether responsibility for the crisis lies with angry protesters—or with those who have persistently resisted meaningful reform in governance.
Parallel calls for accountability have also gained traction. Political analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi has publicly proposed the formation of an independent United Nations fact-finding committee to investigate the killings, identify victims, and document responsibility. His proposal reflects a growing recognition among Iranian commentators that domestic investigative mechanisms lack credibility, and that international oversight may be the only remaining avenue for truth-seeking and accountability.
The UN Human Rights Council convened on Friday to consider the crackdown in Iran and debate next steps. Volker Türk, the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN, addressed the crackdown, stating “Peaceful protestors were reportedly killed in the streets and in residential areas, including universities and medical facilities. Video evidence appears to show hundreds of bodies in morgues, with fatal injuries to the head and chest. Hundreds of security personnel were reportedly also killed…And in a chilling development, the Chief of the Judiciary said earlier this week that their work had just started, and that there would be no leniency for those detained.” Türk asserted that even if Iranian authorities claims of rioting, infiltration and terrorism were true, “None of this would justify the resort to excessive, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, or reduce the Government’s obligations to ensure due process and transparent investigations.” Türk called for a halt of repression, to abstain from punitive sentences, a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and an end to the internet blackout.
Many states voiced concern over the human rights situation and support for the extension of the mandate of the UN Fact-Finding mission first established in the wake of the 2022 protests, along with the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was a major subject of debate during the council’s session. Some others more closely aligned with Iran, or part of the non-aligned movement, voiced concern about the proposal and suggested the push for accountability was biased, violated sovereignty and risks paving the way for external intervention.
Ultimately, the council passed a resolution extending the mandates of the human rights monitors and calling on Iran to move into compliance with its international rights obligations. The vote total was 25 states in favor, 7 against (China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan and Vietnam) and 14 abstentions.
Taken together, these developments indicate that Iran is not moving toward resolution but toward a reconfiguration of repression. Street violence has given way to carceral control, information isolation, and narrative enforcement, even as independent documentation continues to expand and internal political demands intensify. The effort to stabilize the situation through official casualty figures and security dominance now coincides with a far more consequential rupture: open calls for the removal of the Supreme Leader himself.
In the aftermath of Iran’s recent nationwide protests, the country’s economic landscape has entered a tense interim phase, marked by a combination of coercive measures against dissent and renewed efforts by the government to project economic control and stabilization.
Alongside violent repression on the streets, Iranian authorities have increasingly relied on economic pressure as a tool of deterrence. Judicial officials have announced investigations, prosecutions, and potential asset seizures targeting individuals accused of supporting the protests, including business owners, athletes, artists, and other public figures. Prosecutors have framed these actions as a means of compensating protest-related damages, while critics argue they are designed primarily to intimidate economically-active segments of society.
At the same time, the government has moved to reassert its economic narrative, emphasizing policy reform rather than crisis. Central to this effort are recent changes in exchange-rate and subsidy policy. The Minister of Economy has defended the elimination of preferential exchange rates, arguing that the multi-rate system fueled corruption, rent-seeking, and capital leakage, while failing to protect consumers. Under the new approach, the government claims subsidies are being redirected directly to households, particularly lower-income deciles, through cash transfers and consumption credits.
According to the minister, increased currency supply, tighter market oversight, and the removal of distortive incentives have helped calm what officials describe as “market hype.” He has argued that some price increases were driven by uncertainty and expectations, and that as expectations stabilize, the benefits of reform will gradually become visible.
This official optimism coincides with a temporary halt in the rapid depreciation of the rial. During the height of the protests, the U.S. dollar surged to roughly 142000 toman on the open market. In the weeks following the crackdown, the rate has stopped climbing and has hovered around 138,000–140,000 tomans. While this pause has been presented by officials as evidence of improving conditions, the level itself remains extraordinarily high and reflects a severe loss of purchasing power.
The government has also pointed to continued availability of basic goods and easing pressures in select markets, insisting that strategic reserves remain sufficient and that recent disruptions were temporary. Officials argue that maintaining control over the currency market and enforcing fiscal discipline are essential steps toward reducing inflation and narrowing the budget deficit.
Yet the broader context complicates these claims. The same period of relative currency calm has been accompanied by prolonged internet disruptions, which have severely constrained digital commerce and services, as well as by growing uncertainty over property rights amid threats of confiscation. For many businesses and households, this has limited the real impact of stabilization policies and reinforced caution rather than confidence.
In this sense, Iran’s post-protest economy is defined by a fragile equilibrium. The state has managed to pause the immediate free fall of the currency and advance long-delayed policy changes, while simultaneously expanding economic coercion to deter dissent. Whether the current calm can translate into durable stability will depend not on official assurances, but on restoring predictability, legal security, and public trust—all of which remain deeply strained after the protests.
The latest rise in tensions between Iran and the United States has unfolded in the shadow of Iran’s most serious internal unrest in years—an upheaval that initially appeared to draw Washington closer to open political support for Iranian protesters, but has since evolved into a far more ambiguous and potentially dangerous standoff.
In the early days of the unrest, Donald Trump publicly positioned himself as sympathetic to the Iranian people, hinting that the United States would support their demands and warning Tehran against violent repression. That posture, however, did not remain consistent. Within days, Trump’s messaging shifted repeatedly—moving between expressions of openness to negotiations, threats of overwhelming military force, and explicit warnings that any attack on U.S. interests or on his own life would be met with devastating consequences for Iran.
This rhetorical volatility has coincided with a visible escalation in U.S. military signaling and preparation. Trump’s remarks about a “large force” moving toward the region, including a carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, have fueled speculation that Washington may be preparing for more than symbolic deterrence. While U.S. officials have stopped short of declaring imminent military action, the scale and visibility of the deployment suggest multiple possible objectives: reinforcing deterrence, preparing the ground for strikes, or exerting pressure by disrupting Iran’s oil exports or threatening key maritime routes—without formally declaring war.
Iranian officials have responded with unusually direct and uncompromising language. Senior military commanders have warned that any attack on Iranian territory, security, or national interests would trigger immediate retaliation against U.S. bases and assets across the region. Tehran has emphasized that the era of “hit-and-run” operations is over, signaling readiness for rapid and large-scale responses rather than symbolic retaliation. The confrontation has also taken on a personal and symbolic dimension, with increasingly sharp exchanges involving Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, further narrowing the space for quiet de-escalation.
These developments are inseparable from the unresolved consequences of last summer’s brief but intense Israel-U.S.-Iran war. That conflict ended without a comprehensive settlement, leaving behind a fragile and unstable status quo. Central to this unfinished business is Iran’s nuclear program. Months after U.S. strikes hit several Iranian nuclear facilities, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been unable to resume inspections at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. As a result, international monitors have gone months without independent verification of Iran’s high-enriched uranium stockpiles—a situation the agency has warned cannot continue indefinitely.
Alongside the nuclear issue, Iran’s missile program remains a critical and unresolved factor. Untouched by previous diplomatic frameworks, Tehran’s missile capabilities are now openly framed as the backbone of its deterrence strategy. Iranian officials have made clear that any future confrontation would involve regional missile strikes targeting U.S. and allied assets, significantly raising the stakes of any military exchange.
Israel’s position further complicates the picture. Israeli leaders have long argued that the current moment represents a narrowing window to decisively address Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, warning that partial strikes and temporary pauses merely postpone a larger conflict. While Washington has not publicly committed to a new war, Israeli pressure continues to shape U.S. strategic calculations, particularly as inspections remain stalled and uncertainty over Iran’s nuclear materials continues.
Regional actors, however, are signaling growing alarm. Turkey has publicly opposed any foreign military intervention in Iran, warning that another war would further destabilize the region, threaten border security, and disrupt energy markets. These warnings underscore regional fears that a U.S.–Iran confrontation would not remain contained.
At the center of this escalating crisis is Trump’s own dilemma. Military action risks sharply higher global oil prices at a moment of economic sensitivity—a concern voiced by U.S. allies and increasingly by Trump’s domestic political base. Key supporters have expressed skepticism toward another Middle Eastern war, particularly one that could evolve into a prolonged conflict without clear strategic gains. At the same time, unresolved nuclear ambiguity, pressure from Israel, and Trump’s preference for maximum leverage continue to push the administration toward coercive options.
What emerges is not a clear or inevitable march toward war, but a volatile environment shaped by internal unrest in Iran, shifting U.S. rhetoric, military posturing, and unresolved strategic questions. Iran insists it will not initiate war, yet promises overwhelming retaliation. The United States signals both readiness to strike and openness to negotiation. Meanwhile, the nuclear and missile issues left unresolved by the last conflict continue to loom over every decision. In this climate, a trigger may not come from a deliberate decision to go to war, but miscalculation—driven by political pressure, unfinished business, and rapidly escalating signals—that could transform internal unrest and verbal confrontation into a regional conflict with global repercussions.
Published January 20, 2026
After weeks of nationwide unrest, street mobilization across Iran appears to have been contained—at least for now—through an exceptionally heavy, unprecedented, and increasingly indiscriminate security crackdown. The visible calm in many major cities should not be mistaken for political resolution. Rather, it reflects the state’s regained control of public space through lethal force, mass arrests, prolonged internet shutdowns, and the systematic intimidation of families, journalists, and civic actors.
Independent monitoring continues to point to an enormous and rising human toll. According to the latest cumulative data compiled by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), at least 4,029 deaths have been confirmed to date, with an additional 9,049 reported death cases still under review. HRANA breaks this total down into 3,786 protesters, 28 children, 180 government-affiliated forces (military and non-military) and 35 non-protesters and civilians. HRANA has also documented 26,015 arrests nationwide, alongside at least 5,811 individuals who have sustained severe injuries, including cases of permanent eye damage caused by direct targeting. These figures have emerged under conditions of prolonged and near-total information blackout, suggesting that the true scale of fatalities, injuries, and detentions may only become fully clear once communication channels are restored and independent verification becomes possible.
Politically, the authorities have paired a discourse of “leniency” for so-called “misled” participants with explicit threats of swift and exemplary punishment for those labeled “rioters,” “terrorists,” or “ringleaders.” This dual messaging has widened the scope for criminalization while accelerating judicial proceedings.
At the same time, there are signs that the state is moving beyond temporary disruption toward a more durable, tightly filtered internet environment, restoring limited functionality while restricting access to global platforms and independent information.
Within the protest movement itself, a more complex and fragile phase is now unfolding. For many participants, signals from U.S. President Donald Trump and former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi were understood not merely as moral support, but as an indication that meaningful U.S. pressure—or even military action—would restrain the Iranian security apparatus from using maximum force.
As the crackdown unfolded with exceptional brutality and no concrete external plan materialized, a sense of abandonment and strategic miscalculation has begun to take hold. While some activists continue to track reports of U.S. naval movements and military signaling around Iran, disillusionment is growing among those who now question why mass mobilization was encouraged without any clear, realistic framework to protect protesters from foreseeable repression. Political action driven by expectations of foreign rescue that fails to materialize often does not produce renewed resistance but deep demoralization, withdrawal, and long-term political disengagement.
This atmosphere has been further complicated by reports and images of violence attributed to some protesters, including acts circulated by opposition-adjacent platforms themselves. Even where such reports are fragmentary or unverified, their political impact is evident: they reinforce the state’s security narrative, help justify harsher repression, and facilitate the mobilization of security forces and conservative constituencies behind maximal force. In this sense, protest-side violence—regardless of scale—has become strategically consequential.
Amid this convergence of state brutality, protest-side violence, and external militarization, a public statement signed by fourteen prominent Iranian intellectual, religious, and political figures—including Abdolkarim Soroush, Hamid Dabashi, Mohsen Kadivar, Hasan Yousefi Eshkevari, Yaser Mirdamadi, and Alireza Rajaei—offers a rare, comprehensive intervention from within Iran’s broader civil and moral landscape. The statement begins from a clear ethical premise: the sanctity of human life is absolute. It argues that even a single unjust killing constitutes a moral, legal, and religious catastrophe, and that the recurring pattern of protests ending in bloodshed is evidence of a deep structural crisis and chronic inability to manage social conflict without violence. The authors insist that the state bears full responsibility—by reason, law, and religious duty—to protect lives and ensure the safety of protesters.
While acknowledging reports of foreign interference or provocations, the signatories stress that such claims in no way diminish the responsibility of Iran’s senior political, intelligence, and security leadership. On the contrary, they argue that the repeated failure of security institutions—despite years of expanded powers and curtailed freedoms—demonstrates that the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security has produced neither safety nor stability. Suppressing freedoms, they contend, has itself become one of the country’s most serious security liabilities.
The statement sharply criticizes the redirection of security institutions toward policing lifestyles, silencing critics, and marginalizing civil society, warning that sidelining independent experts and mediating institutions has left society voiceless and combustible. It calls for an independent, neutral fact-finding mechanism to publicly document the number of those killed and the circumstances of each death, arguing that only transparency and accountability can begin to address the profound collapse of public trust.
At the same time, the signatories advance a parallel and equally forceful argument against violence and war. They categorically condemn all forms of foreign military intervention, warning that neither Israel nor the United States can plausibly claim to act in the interests of the Iranian people. External powers, they argue, pursue their own strategic agendas, whereas Iran’s future must be determined by Iranians. Appeals to foreign force are described as either dangerously naïve or politically opportunistic, and likely to expose the country to irreparable harm.
Crucially, the statement also rejects violence by protesters themselves. While state violence is unequivocally condemned, the authors warn that retaliatory or confrontational violence undermines democratic legitimacy and directly feeds the machinery of repression, providing authorities with justification to escalate force and securitize the entire movement. Sustained reliance on violent tactics, they caution, risks inflicting long-term damage on the prospects of future democratic change in Iran.
This position closely echoes the views of artist and activist Parastou Forouhar, who has likewise warned that violence—whether initiated by the state or by protesters—leads not to liberation but to the normalization and expansion of coercive power. In her assessment, violent acts attributed to protesters not only cause immediate harm but also strengthen the state’s hand, allowing it to consolidate security forces and reframe civic protest as a security war.
Meanwhile, the government has intensified control over domestic media and public discourse. The suspension of the reformist-leaning newspaper Ham-Mihan has become emblematic of this trend. Critics of the move, including its managing director Gholamhussein Karbaschi, have argued that the closure contradicts promises of moderation and has imposed heavy social and economic costs, including job losses, while further narrowing the already constrained space for lawful dissent.
Ham-Mihan journalist Elaheh Mohammadi, who was imprisoned in retaliation for her reporting on the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests, posted on X regarding the suspension of her newspaper and the mood in Tehran after the crackdown. Mohammadi wrote, “It’s been a day or two, our filter breakers work for half an hour to an hour a day and we connect to the internet. We announce that we are alive. The city smells of death, I’ve never seen it snow in Tehran in my entire life and no one even smiles. The newspaper Ham-Mihan was shut down after three and a half years of publication. We tried to write about the dead and injured all the days before. From Malekshahi, from Behesht Zahra, Kahrizak and the eyes waiting for the bodies of loved ones, from the hospitals, nurses and doctors who saw the disaster with their own eyes, shed tears and did everything they could. Difficult days have passed and everyone is shocked; The country is mourning, the country is angry, the country is heartbroken.”
International consequences are also multiplying. Diplomatic distancing, the withdrawal of invitations from major global forums, aviation risk warnings, and flight suspensions all signal how internal repression and the specter of military escalation are converging into a broader environment of isolation and instability.
Taken together, these developments point to a stark conclusion: Iran’s protest movement has been pushed into an enforced quiet, not by consent but by overwhelming coercion. The human cost continues to rise, even as verification grows harder. Expectations of foreign protection—especially among those mobilized by pro-Pahlavi currents and emboldened by Trump signals—are colliding with the reality of strategic ambiguity, producing grief, anger, and disillusionment. And a growing current within Iran’s civic and intellectual sphere is now articulating a dual warning: that state repression, protest-side violence, and foreign military intervention all risk reinforcing one another, driving the country toward deeper cycles of trauma, radicalization, and authoritarian entrenchment rather than a credible, internal, and nonviolent political future.
At a special session convened to address the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution with 25 votes in favor. The session and adoption of the resolution signaled heightened international alarm over the scale and gravity of Iranian government violations committed during recent nationwide protests.
Seven states—China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Vietnam—voted against the resolution, while 14 members abstained, reflecting continued geopolitical divisions but not diminishing the resolution’s legal and normative significance.
With the adoption of the resolution, the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran is extended for one year, and the mandate of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran is renewed for an additional two years. From a legal and institutional perspective, these extensions reflect the Council’s assessment that existing domestic mechanisms in Iran remain unable or unwilling to ensure accountability for serious human rights violations. Under international human rights law, the continuation of these mandates signals concern that alleged abuses may be systematic and widespread, necessitating sustained international monitoring and documentation.
The resolution identifies patterns of conduct that, if substantiated, constitute violations of Iran’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Iran is a state party. It calls on Iranian authorities to immediately cease the unlawful use of force, including lethal force, against peaceful demonstrators; end arbitrary arrests, detentions, and enforced disappearances; release individuals detained solely for exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and expression; halt the use of the death penalty against protesters, particularly where convictions follow trials lacking basic due process guarantees; ensure accountability through prompt, independent, and impartial investigations; lift restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information, including internet shutdowns; and fully cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms.
Addressing the Council in Geneva, Mai Sato, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, warned that the dangerous and inflammatory language used by Iranian officials—labeling peaceful protesters as “terrorists,” “rioters,” and “foreign agents”—functions to legitimize violent repression and obscures the domestic and interconnected nature of the protests. She notes that calls for harsher measures originate not only from operational authorities but also from Iran’s highest political leadership, including the Supreme Leader and the heads of all three branches of government.
Sato stresses that under international law, lethal force may only be used as a last resort to protect life, and only when it is lawful, necessary, and proportionate. She states that the extensive video evidence received by her mandate demonstrates that the use of lethal force against unarmed protesters constitutes a clear violation of these principles. She further underscores that the excessive use of force and the issuance of death sentences against peaceful protesters represent a blatant disregard for the rights to life, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly. Even where executions are not carried out, she emphasizes, sentencing protesters to death is itself unlawful and is designed to silence dissent through fear.
Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN Office in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, rejected the resolution and accused its sponsors of political motivations. He argued that states supporting the special session impose sanctions that harm Iranian civilians and alleged hypocrisy in their responses to regional violence. He further claimed that participants and speakers at the session are externally funded and disconnected from the Iranian population, portraying the resolution as a tool of political pressure rather than a response to documented human rights violations. From a legal standpoint, however, such objections do not negate Iran’s binding treaty obligations, nor do they absolve the state of its duty to prevent, investigate, and remedy violations committed by its agents.
The Council’s decision reflects the severity and persistence of Iran’s human rights crisis. NIAC condemns the Iranian government’s use of lethal force against peaceful protesters, mass arrests, and the imposition of death sentences following fundamentally unfair judicial processes, emphasizing that these practices constitute clear and grave violations of international human rights law. Iran’s claims of violent actors among the protesters, which appear to be partially supported by visual evidence, do not represent a blank check to unleash indiscriminate violence on anyone involved in the demonstrations and kill thousands of people in a compressed time period.
NIAC calls on Iranian authorities to immediately end the violent crackdown, halt executions related to protest activity, and fully cooperate with the United Nations, including by granting unhindered access to the Special Rapporteur and the Fact-Finding Mission. The organization stresses that cooperation with UN mechanisms is not a political concession, but a legal obligation arising from Iran’s international commitments.
|
