The Silence on Iran
Iran is discussed constantly: its nuclear programme, missiles, sanctions and regional ambitions. Yet somewhere inside that enormous international conversation, the Iranian people themselves have become strangely difficult to see.
There is something deeply troubling happening in Iran, and perhaps one reason the outside world has struggled to understand it is that Iran has gradually ceased to be presented as an ordinary country inhabited by ordinary people. Its name reaches Western audiences through nuclear negotiations, uranium enrichment, missiles, sanctions, regional conflict and war, and we hear constantly about what the Islamic Republic wants, what its officials threaten and what its military possesses, while far less often do we encounter the Iranian teacher, shopkeeper, student, mother, pensioner or graduate trying to build a life inside the country those negotiations are supposedly about. This distinction matters because Iran is not synonymous with the Islamic Republic. A government is an institution of power; a country is its people, memories, landscape, languages, families and the lives generations have built within it. Iran existed for millennia before the Islamic Republic appeared in 1979, and whatever political system eventually succeeds the present one, Iran and Iranians will remain.
The Iran that disappears behind these political discussions is the Caspian coast and the forests of Gilan, Tehran beneath the Alborz mountains, villages and universities, crowded markets, music, poetry and families gathering around tables. It is young people studying medicine, engineering, science and literature while wondering whether the education they worked so hard to obtain will ever allow them to build the lives they imagined in their own country. Increasingly, it is also a country of departures, with Iranian families scattered across continents, parents growing old thousands of kilometers from their children and grandparents watching grandchildren grow through screens. Political repression does not destroy a life only through prison or execution; it can also diminish a life slowly, through lost opportunity, financial insecurity, fear, separation and eventually the conclusion that the only realistic future lies somewhere other than home.
When Iran went dark
At the end of December 2025, protests erupted amid severe economic pressure and rapidly developed into demands for fundamental political change. Amnesty International documented unlawful use of lethal force and mass killings, including evidence that security forces fired rifles and shotguns at protesters. Establishing the final death toll remains extremely difficult, but Amnesty reported that the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran had cited at least 5,000 deaths, while information from medical sources suggested the number could have been privately reported over 50,000. Rather than pretending that a disputed figure is certain, this uncertainty itself needs to be understood in the context of what happened next: on 8 January, the authorities imposed a near-total internet shutdown while the crackdown was taking place.
The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that the shutdown severely restricted journalists' ability to report and cut communication with the outside world, while Amnesty documented thousands of arrests, enforced disappearances and allegations of torture and other ill-treatment. The imbalance was extraordinary: the state possessed television networks, security forces, prisons, courts and weapons, while ordinary citizens struggled simply to send a video beyond Iran's borders. A government cannot prevent independent scrutiny and then benefit from the absence of independently verified evidence.
The information restrictions did not end with January. Following the outbreak of war at the end of February, another nationwide shutdown of access to the global internet lasted 88 days, according to Amnesty International, isolating more than 90 million people until access began to be restored, with continuing restrictions, on 26 May. The consequences extended far beyond politics: families were separated, businesses and freelancers lost access to work, students lost educational resources and people outside Iran struggled to discover whether relatives were safe.
When a state restricts independent journalism, controls domestic broadcasting and disconnects its population from the internet, reporting what government officials say remains necessary, but repeating an official position cannot substitute for investigating it. Organizations such as Reuters, CNN, Channel 4 and Sky News have a difficult responsibility in such circumstances, because the less freely ordinary Iranians can speak, the more carefully official narratives must be scrutinized. The question accompanying those narratives should always be: where are the voices of the people who cannot safely answer back?
A standard that should not have changed
There is an uncomfortable historical comparison here. Before 1979, Western journalists repeatedly confronted Mohammad Reza Shah about SAVAK, political prisoners, torture, inequality and authoritarianism, and they were right to ask those questions because political power deserves scrutiny.
Yet the failures of the Pahlavi state eventually came to dominate much of the international memory of that period, while Iran's extraordinary transformation received less lasting attention. Roads, railways, schools, universities, healthcare and industry expanded; women received the vote in 1963; women's participation in education and public life increased; and the Family Protection Laws of 1967 and 1975 substantially expanded women's legal position within marriage and family life.
Both realities belong to the same history, just as acknowledging inequality does not require pretending that development never occurred. The question is therefore not why journalists challenged the Shah—they should have—but why the same determination to examine political repression appears so difficult to sustain after nearly half a century of rule by the Islamic Republic.
The executions continue
Amnesty International reported on 21 May 2026 that Iranian authorities had arbitrarily executed at least 36 people on politically motivated charges since 28 February, following what it described as grossly unfair trials. At least 78 protesters, dissidents and others were under sentence of death, including 41 people arrested in connection with the January protests, while at least five had been children at the time of their alleged offences. These figures are not estimates made for this article; they are documented cases published by one of the world's largest human-rights organizations, and the true human story behind them extends far beyond numbers to families waiting for information, searching for lawyers and wondering whether someone they love will ever come home.
The prisons, however, reveal only part of the damage. Iran possesses enormous natural resources and an educated population, yet ordinary households have watched their purchasing power deteriorate dramatically. Reuters reported on 29 August 2026 that inflation had reached approximately 66 per cent, amid war, intensified sanctions, disrupted trade and wider economic crisis. Whatever responsibility is assigned among domestic policy, corruption, sanctions and war, the people absorbing the consequences are ordinary Iranians. For them inflation is not an abstract percentage but food purchased less frequently, medicine postponed, rent becoming frightening, savings losing their value and young adults discovering that education and employment may still not provide independence.
A country can lose its people without burying them. It loses them when talented young citizens spend their energy planning emigration instead of building companies, laboratories, schools and institutions at home; when families scatter across continents; when professional or personal freedom seems to require departure; and when people who deeply love their country begin to believe that they must leave it in order to have a future. Iran's human cost therefore cannot be calculated only through graves and prison cells, but must also be measured in interrupted lives, separated families and futures exported elsewhere.
And still the world talks
None of this is an argument against diplomacy, nor is it an argument for war. Ordinary Iranians have already paid too high a price for conflicts over which they have little control, and diplomacy will sometimes be necessary even between governments that profoundly disagree. But diplomacy should never require moral silence, and there is something troubling when international discussions about Iran repeatedly find space for enrichment levels, sanctions, missiles and regional security while executions, political prisoners, censorship and the political wishes of Iranian people become secondary considerations.
The contradiction is particularly striking in Britain, where on 17 July 2026 the government formally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a threat to national security under the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026, making expressions of support and certain forms of assistance criminal offences. This is a significant legal development, yet the distinction between Iran and the institutions governing Iran remains essential: recognising the threat posed by an arm of the Islamic Republic should make the international community more attentive to Iranian citizens living under that system, not less.
Perhaps this is the convenient silence surrounding Iran. It is not that nobody reports the executions or documents the arrests; human-rights organisations, Iranian journalists, families, activists and international reporters continue doing so. The deeper danger is that Iranian suffering has become familiar enough to become ordinary. When execution, political prisoner, internet blackout and Iran appear beside one another often enough, events that would constitute an extraordinary national crisis elsewhere risk becoming merely another instalment in the Iranian story.
Sources & further reading
- Amnesty International — What happened at the protests in Iran? — January killings, internet shutdown and difficulties establishing the death toll.
- Amnesty International — Protesters and dissidents at risk of execution — May 2026 figures on executions and death sentences.
- Amnesty International — Mass arrests, executions and the 88-day blackout — documentation of the later internet shutdown and political executions.
- Committee to Protect Journalists — Iran's internet blackout — restrictions on journalists and communications during the January protests.
- UK Home Office — IRGC designated a threat to national security — official UK government announcement of 17 July 2026.
- Reuters — War weighs on Iran's economy — current reporting on inflation, trade and economic conditions.
- Reuters — Life returns to Tehran's streets — potential contemporary photographs for the article; licensing rights are offered through Reuters.
Continue reading
Related essays
After the Groom’s Last Wedding: Who Will Rebuild the Homes We Share?
Alireza Sepahi married the woman he loved by telephone from prison. The next morning, Iran executed him. His story belongs to a wider crisis: a regime answering economic desperation with killings, while violence and intimidation also fracture communities across Europe. From burning schools and attacks on teachers to migrants risking their lives for safety, the same question demands an answer: who will take responsibility for protecting the places we share, and rebuilding the countries people have been forced to leave?
The Centrist Transitional Mandate
Dr Peyman Bakhshayesh examines how Reza Pahlavi could help guide a democratic transition in Iran through a limited, inclusive mandate. Exploring constitutional monarchy, national reconciliation and the dangers of factional control, he argues that the transition must protect the Iranian people’s freedom to choose their future system of government.
Beyond the Scoreline: Ireland, Israel and the Unequal Measure of Compassion
Football is meant to bring people together. At the IrelandIsrael match, Iranians in exile saw a question beneath the gestures of mourning: can compassion include Palestinians, Israelis and Iranians at once?