Nursing chief warns staff shortages delay hospital openings in Tehran

The interview clip featuring actress Fariba Naderi on the weekly YouTube show Pump went viral in Iran within hours of streaming, sparking backlash over her comments on class divides and privilege in Tehran’s affluent northern neighborhoods.

The entertainment program, streamed on YouTube and several domestic platforms, quickly drew 900,000 views on YouTube alone—despite the site being officially blocked in Iran.

Naderi, who won the Crystal Simorgh for Best Actress at last year’s Fajr Film Festival, made lighthearted remarks about the class and lifestyle of another actress and close friend, Narges Mohammadi. What she intended as humor was widely perceived as tone-deaf amid worsening economic hardship.

“There's a big class difference (between Narges and I),” she said with a grin. “But class differences don’t matter to me... We live in Shahid Fallahi (the upscale neighborhood of Zafaraniyeh), and they live below Vanak Square (in northern Tehran).”

She added that for people like her, “below Vanak” meant paeen-shahr — a phrase used for lower-class districts of Tehran, though Vanak Square itself is considered upscale.

Host Amir-Hossein Qiyasi encouraged the joking tone, but many viewers saw her remarks as glorifying privilege and reinforcing the city’s “uptown versus downtown” divide.

The outrage beyond the joke

The clip quickly became a symbol of elitism and cultural detachment among Iran’s celebrities. Politicians, journalists, and critics from across the spectrum joined the debate.

The state-run ISNA news agency noted that even humor about class now provokes collective anger in a society where inequality is deeply felt. “Tangible economic hardship and the lived experience of inequality have made even jokes about wealth sound like arrogance.”

Conservative commentator Farhad Rezazadeh wrote: “Class difference is not just an economic reality but the moral decline of a nation. Whoever glorifies it shares in its corruption.”

“Thank Fariba Naderi—no one could have so simply shown how deep Iran’s class divide has become… There’s a gulf between privilege and survival,” reformist journalist Davoud Heshmati remarked on X.

A deeper anxiety over inequality

Naderi’s supporters say she was merely joking and that decades of economic disparity cannot be blamed on an actress. They argue the backlash shows a tendency to scapegoat celebrities rather than confront systemic inequality.

Others, however, saw her comments as trivializing hardship and exposing simmering resentment beneath Iran’s economic stagnation.

Journalist Rasoul Asadzadeh wrote that the controversy evokes memories of corruption and humiliation in daily life: “It’s a reminder of the humiliation of begging for school tuition, taking a second job to pay rent, working extra hours for dental costs, and the crushing load we Iranians—men and women alike—carry just to live with dignity.”

Critics also tied the outrage to Iran’s broader economic trajectory. Some users cited Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 promise that his revolution would “turn the slum dwellers into palace dwellers.”

Despite Iran’s per-capita GDP roughly doubling since then, chronic inflation and soaring living costs have made ordinary Iranians poorer and eroded the middle class.

“In a country where inflation has hit unprecedented levels and the middle class—the stabilizing pillar of any society—has practically vanished, jokes about class difference are not funny. They are disrespectful to people’s pain,” journalist Azadeh Mokhtari posted on X.

She added: “A society where living costs crush citizens doesn’t need laughter at its own suffering—it needs empathy and a reflection of reality. Turning inequality into comedy only normalizes injustice.”

During Donald Trump’s presidency, Tuberville argued, Iran had little sway over events in Gaza, and that US diplomacy was more effective because the White House avoided direct engagement with Tehran on the issue.

“Iran is non-relevant right now,” he said. “As President Trump said – they weren’t. There was no negotiation.”

Speaking on Capitol Hill, the Republican senator praised Qatar and Turkey for their roles in clinching the Gaza peace agreement but said efforts to end the Israel-Palestine conflict should not rely on temporary truces.

“In the Middle East, between Hamas and Israel -- obviously we’ve fought for 2,000 years,” Tuberville said. “We’re not going to solve it in a week with just one ceasefire and a peace deal.”

Under a US-brokered truce, Hamas was required to release the final 20 living Israeli hostages within 72 hours of Israel’s withdrawal on October 10, a condition it met, and to provide the remains or details of all those killed within the same timeframe.

Hamas failed to meet that latter condition, later handing over 15 of 28 deceased hostages. Israel has accused the group of deliberately withholding the remains of others believed to be in its custody.

Iran has long supported Hamas with funding, weapons, and training, positioning the group as part of what Tehran calls its “axis of resistance” against Israel and Western influence.

Tuberville said restoring the Abraham Accords - Trump-brokered normalization deals between Israel and Arab countries - should be a key regional priority.

“Maybe we can get the Abraham Accords back intact,” he said. “I think that’s going to be a big deal — but it’s a mess.”

Last month, Trump expressed hope that even Iran would join the Abraham Accords.

"Who knows maybe even Iran can get in there, we expect, we hope we are going to be able to get along with Iran. I think they're going to be open to it, I really believe that" Trump told reporters in late September.

"I long ago said at one point Iran would be a member of the accords. And little did I realize it was going to take this turn. It was some turn we did with the B-2s."

"I think they might very well be there, it would be a great thing for them economically."

The chants of that autumn have given way to vindictive attacks online and heated but more cordial arguments in living rooms, where friends and families debate what should come next as if the Islamic Republic had already fallen—or as if anyone truly knew how, or when, it could.

It was meant to be a relaxed family gathering: tea glasses on the table, satellite television murmuring in the background, the usual jokes about officials and inflation. Then images appeared on the screen: young women waving pre-revolutionary flags in Berlin.

The room fell quiet. Auntie Nahid sighed.

Uncle Saeed, Nahid’s brother, mimicked her sigh. “You still don’t get it, do you?” he said. “You really think such protests could lead anywhere without a leader?”

That was all it took.

Nahid—my mother’s sister—had been a leftist before and after the 1979 revolution, a university activist who opposed the monarchy but refused to board the Islamic bandwagon. Decades later, she still rejects the idea of restoring either.

Saeed, once a quiet junior employee at the trade ministry, had joined the wave of early believers in Khomeini’s revolution. For a year or two he called it sacred. Now, in his early seventies, he’s our family’s most ardent supporter of the fallen Shah and his exiled son, Reza Pahlavi.

“You’re being as ridiculous as you were forty-five years ago,” Nahid snapped. “Then you kept asking ‘Do you believe in Khomeini or not?’ You wanted allegiance then, you want allegiance now.”

“I don’t want allegiance,” Saeed replied, his voice rising. “I just say let’s rally behind Pahlavi, because he’s the only alternative. You’re being as evasive as you were back then. If it’s between Pahlavi and the Islamic Republic, which one do you choose?”

“I won’t go along with your false binary,” Nahid said. “We must try to bring about real change, something that’s neither this nor the past.”

Saeed shook his head. “That’s just nice words. Reality is he’s the only one with a chance of bringing them down. He’s got international support, which is necessary in this ruined land. You may not like it, but it’s always been like this. Big powers decide who comes and who goes—or at least they have to be okay with it, or nothing happens.”

“That support,” Nahid replied, “is exactly why I don’t like it. It’s 2025, for heaven’s sake, not 1925. We should at least aspire to do better than that.”

“There, that’s your problem,” he said with a bitter smile. “You’re idealistic. And your idealism keeps us from getting rid of this regime.”

Nahid shook her head so fiercely you feared her neck would crack.

“You’re being ridiculous again,” she shouted. “Who’s this ‘us’? And how am I stopping it? Take to the streets and I’ll be the first to back you. But where’s the organization? Where’s the call to action? If any group were really an alternative and thought it stood a chance, they wouldn’t waste their time arguing with others. They’d just take over and deal with obstacles like me later.”

“All I’m saying,” Saeed muttered, clearly trying not to aggravate his younger sister further, “is we should gather around one figure and give it a go. Otherwise we’ll be stuck with this bunch forever.”

Nahid turned toward him, voice softer but no less bitter. “You loved getting behind one figure back then, and we know how that ended. You followed me two blocks on the way to protest the compulsory hijab in March 1979 to dissuade me, because it would ‘harm the revolution,’ remember?”

The room went still. My father, sensing where it was headed, stepped in: “Could you not ruin the night for the hundredth time? To hell with them all.”

The quarrel dissolved into silence, then small talk. But the argument lingered in the air—one that feels as old as the Islamic Republic itself.

What unfolded that night could have taken place in any number of Iranian households. Families that once shared the same dreams now sit on opposite sides of the country’s unhealed divide.

Some who once chanted for revolution now argue for reform. Many who once preached patience now want collapse—foreign intervention even.

What separates people like Nahid and Saeed is not only ideology but the shape of their disillusionment. Both, in their own ways, are haunted by the 1979 choices that promised liberation and delivered repression.

As the evening wore on, the conversation drifted back to the mundane: rising prices, the neighbor’s noisy parties—and of course, the leaked wedding video of Shamkhani’s daughter.

On the muted television the images from Berlin looped once more—a bright moment fading into memory as we quarrel over who should bring down a theocracy that shows no sign of budging.

Geologists cited by Tasnim news agency said subsidence has accelerated across provinces such as Isfahan, Fars and Tehran, with field observations of cracks, surface fissures and foundation instability near historic structures.

“Nearly half of Iran’s valuable historic fabric lies in subsidence-prone zones,” geologist Ali Shahbaz was quoted as saying, adding that “63 nationally registered monuments and 27 world-class sites” are in affected areas.

In Isfahan, the long-dry Zayandehrud river has been linked to ground settlement of roughly 16-25 cm a year in the city’s north, raising stability concerns for Naqsh-e Jahan Square, the Shah and Sheikh Lotfollah mosques, and the Safavid-era Si-o-se-Pol and Khajou bridges, Tasnim reported.

In Fars province, subsidence in the Marvdasht plain -- estimated around 14 cm a year -- has prompted warnings about drainage systems and stone platforms at Persepolis and potential long-term risks to the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae and the rock-cut tombs of Naqsh-e Rostam.

The concerns come amid broader alarms over nationwide land-subsidence.

Tasnim, citing official tallies, said 380 cities and about 9,000 villages have reported some level of subsidence, with roughly 42 million people living on sinking ground.

Iran’s Geological Survey says two decades of drought and sustained over-pumping, compounded by fragmented water governance, have pushed 106 plains into non-recoverable subsidence.

Cultural-heritage specialists stress there is no immediate risk of collapse at marquee sites, but warn that cumulative deformation, coupled with drying soils and sporadic heavy rains, could inflict irreversible damage over years to decades.

“No site is on the brink today,” Shahbaz said. “But without curbing withdrawals and restoring groundwater, we are setting the stage for losses that cannot be repaired.”

The Mossad named Sardar Ammar, a senior Quds Force officer operating under commander Esmail Ghaani, as the leader of a network responsible for planned operations in Australia, Greece, and Germany during 2024-2025, a statement released via the prime minister’s office on behalf of the Mossad said on Sunday.

The Mossad described the network’s methods as “terror without Iranian fingerprints,” using foreign recruits, criminal intermediaries, and covert communications to conceal Tehran’s role.

“Thanks to intensive activity with partners in Israel and abroad, dozens of attack tracks were thwarted, saving many lives,” the statement said.

In August, Australia expelled Iranian Ambassador Ahmad Sadeghi and announced plans to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, after intelligence linked Tehran to antisemitic arson attacks in Melbourne and Sydney. Sadeghi denied the allegations upon his departure.

In Germany, authorities summoned Iran’s ambassador, Majid Nili Ahmadabadi, in July after the arrest of a Danish suspect accused of spying on Jewish and Israeli-linked sites in Berlin for Iranian intelligence. German officials said the surveillance could have been preparatory to terrorist attacks.

Iran’s covert campaign and regional reach

The Mossad accused Iran of pursuing a long-term strategy “to harm innocents around the globe while maintaining deniability,” but said the recent revelations “strip Iran of its space for denial and impose heavy diplomatic costs.”

The statement cited earlier cases in Greece as part of the same pattern. In 2024, Greek police arrested suspects, including Iranian and Afghan nationals, over arson attacks on an Israeli-owned hotel and a synagogue in Athens.

A year earlier, two Pakistani men were charged with plotting attacks on Israeli and Jewish sites in the city under Iranian direction.

The dismantling of Ammar’s network and the resulting diplomatic pressure, the Mossad said, marked a significant blow to Iran’s covert operations abroad, demonstrating what it called the Islamic Republic’s “repeated operational failures and growing international isolation.”