Tehran debates female bike ban but the streets have already decided

“What is clear is that total public satisfaction with all governments since the revolution is now overshadowed by a 92 percent dissatisfaction with the country’s current situation,” Rouydad24 wrote.

The report said the study was conducted by a recognized polling center that often carries out research for state institutions.

It assessed public views of Iran’s governments from the early years of the Islamic Republic to the present, ranking administrations by their perceived performance.

The data have not been released publicly, but Rouydad24 said “the most striking outcome was widespread discontent among respondents across the country.”

According to the outlet, “the level of satisfaction with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration was highest overall,” while those of “Hassan Rouhani and Masoud Pezeshkian ranked lowest.” The report said opinions in Tehran differed from other regions, with “lower popularity levels recorded in the capital.”

Poll prepared for internal use

The poll was prepared for internal use by decision-makers and was not intended for public release. Rouydad24 said “similar internal studies have long been carried out by various institutions to measure public sentiment and help guide policymaking.”

The publication noted that the results align with other recent research showing growing mistrust of political institutions and frustration over economic hardship. It said that although the time and context of each government shaped public expectations, “overall dissatisfaction across all administrations is now unprecedented.”

The findings echo a separate survey released earlier this month by the Netherlands-based GAMAAN institute, which found that most Iranians believed Israel prevailed in the June war and favored direct negotiations between Tehran and Washington. That survey also showed rising demand for change in Iran’s political system and declining confidence in its leadership.

This pattern of contradictory statements suggests a deliberate strategy.

By constantly shifting positions and contradicting one another, Iranian officials may be attempting to prolong indirect messaging with Washington while avoiding actual negotiations, perhaps hoping to stall until Donald Trump leaves office.

On Monday, security chief Ali Larijani declared that Iran rejects Western demands to limit its nuclear program, while Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated Tehran’s commitment to strengthening the so-called “axis of resistance.”

The United States and Europe have made halting uranium enrichment, ending support for regional proxy groups and curbing missile development key conditions for lifting sanctions and potentially normalizing relations with Iran.

Larijani also asked, “What right does the West have to talk about the range of Iran’s missiles?” and insisted that Tehran would not “surrender to the West even at the cost of full-fledged confrontation.”

His remarks likely reflect calculated defiance.

Larijani is well aware that Iran’s missile program is a major source of concern for Europe and neighboring countries, especially given Tehran’s military cooperation with Russia in the war against Ukraine and its provision of missiles to Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Yet he avoids questioning why Iran continues to involve itself in conflicts in Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza.

Following Iran’s missile response to Israeli strikes in June, and its operations targeting Iraqi Kurdistan and tribal areas in Pakistan in the past, Western powers and regional neighbors are under no illusion: Iran is willing to deploy missiles and drones whenever its clerical leadership or Revolutionary Guards commanders deem it necessary.

Despite ongoing public discourse by Iranian officials and media commentators about resolving the diplomatic impasse, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and at times President Pezeshkian, Araghchi and Larijani have made it clear that Iran has no intention of negotiating directly with the United States.

Khamenei recently said that hostility toward the United States is intrinsic to the Islamic Republic’s identity. But on Monday, Larijani asserted that none of Iran’s leaders have ever had any enmity with the West.

Adding to the confusion, government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani acknowledged that Iran has received messages from the United States, while the foreign ministry flatly denied any such contact.

'Cannot continue'

Meanwhile, media outlets continue to fuel the narrative of “talks about talks.”

On Monday, ILNA quoted foreign policy analyst Amir-Ali Abolfath as saying, “We are in the middle of a US attack on Iran.”

“Attacks don’t always come with guns and tanks," he added. "There are cyber wars, cognitive warfare, economic wars and sanctions. We are at war with the United States, only the sound of gunfire is missing.”

Abolfath concluded that the divide between Tehran and Washington is unbridgeable.

In contrast, commentator Ali Bigdeli, writing for Fararu, suggested that Iran should seek mediation from International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi to break the deadlock despite Grossi’s recent warning that Tehran could still eventually build a nuclear weapon.

While many Iranian commentators warned on Monday of imminent conflict with Israel or the United States, Bigdeli reassured Fararu readers that “another war is unlikely to break out.”

In a separate Fararu piece, analyst Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani added, “another war is unlikely unless unrest erupts inside Iran.”

That paradox in official messaging may be untenable, Bigdeli warned: “The current situation cannot continue for long.”

Ershadi passed away on November 11 at the age of 78 after battling cancer, according to Iranian state media.

Born in Isfahan in 1947, Ershadi began his professional life as an architect, never imagining he would one day become the face of one of Iranian cinema’s most celebrated films.

His unlikely entry into the film industry became almost cinematic itself. As Ershadi recalled in interviews, world renowned director Abbas Kiarostami noticed him while both were stuck in Tehran traffic and asked if he would consider acting.

That spontaneous encounter led to Taste of Cherry (1997), which went on to win the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

Speaking years later about the experience, Ershadi told Media Max: “We were sitting in my car with Kiarostami, eating ice cream when I asked him about my character. He said, ‘Your character is an architect from Italy.’ I was also an architect working in Italy. I wore my own clothes in the film, and that was my car I drove. During the dialogues there was Kiarostami standing in front of me, instead of the actor. I was not playing a role; I was just being myself.”

Ershadi also once remarked with pride, “Kiarostami did not work with professional actors. The non-professional actors of his films did not continue their careers later. I can say I am the only one who kept acting after his film.”

Following his breakout performance, Ershadi devoted himself fully to cinema, appearing in dozens of productions in Iran and abroad. His most acclaimed international role came a decade later as Baba in Marc Forster’s The Kite Runner (2007), which brought him to the attention of Western audiences and received multiple nominations, including at the Academy Awards and the Golden Globes.

He went on to appear in Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty (2012), Anton Corbijn’s A Most Wanted Man (2014), and Asif Kapadia’s Ali and Nino (2016).

In his later years, Ershadi often reflected on the bridge between architecture and acting, saying both required “a sense of structure, patience, and creativity.”

His quiet, dignified presence on and off screen left a lasting mark on Iranian and world cinema alike.

For more than forty some years, the Islamic Republic has tried not only to control power but to monopolize conversation itself, deciding who speaks, what is heard, and which "alternative truths" are permitted to exist.

Dialogue frightens it. So does ordinary patriotism, the kind that arises when people speak in their own words about their country.

On the line, a teacher from Kermanshah tells me that students are never taught the courage to ask critical questions. A Toronto caller describes a generation that has learned to survive by lying. A woman in Tehran confesses that she’s waiting for a miracle because she can no longer imagine change.

These voices are not fragments; they are coordinates on the map of a national psyche. Talking in Iran can be dangerous. Silence, in another way, is deadly too. When a society stops speaking to itself, it begins to turn against itself. Authoritarians thrive on that silence.

The live show I host is an attempt—improvised, fragile, sometimes chaotic, to reverse that damage. We bring Iranians together in real time, from Tehran to Los Angeles. We follow three simple rules: everyone gets heard, no judgment, and keep it suitable for all ages.

Our callers often contradict themselves. That’s what makes it real. Dialogue isn’t the theater of agreement; it’s the discipline of listening.

Across the static and emotion, three truths keep repeating.

First: the Islamic Republic never stops talking, but it doesn’t listen. It sermonizes, threatens, censors and congratulates itself. This isn’t strength, it’s fear.

Second: society has begun to mirror that refusal. Iranians interrupt before they understand, argue before they think and treat disagreement as contamination. The Islamic Republic feeds that instinct.

Third: the way out of this loop isn’t heroic, it’s procedural. Ask a real question. Wait for real answers. Let facts, not pride, decide who’s right. simple but challenging.

'Look in the mirror'

Iran today is divided by many wars: between people and government, truth and propaganda, hope and exhaustion. Yet, amid that division, I still hear the quiet persistence of life.

A caller from Tehran wants to talk about water: the taps shut off at midnight, and families fill bottles before the cutoff. That, too, is politics, the right to live without fear of thirst.

Another caller, from Shiraz, demands leadership. “Death with honor is better than life with humiliation,” he says. Moments later, a woman from Tehran replies, “Stop looking for a savior. Look in the mirror.”

These exchanges are the substance of what I call "national dialogue". Not a slogan or a policy, just the collective decision to speak before it’s too late.

Tunisia did it and saved itself from civil war. Nelson Mandela in South Africa did it and dismantled apartheid. Yemen pretended to do it and collapsed. For Iran, dialogue is not an ideal; it’s a means of survival.

I am not neutral about the Islamic Republic forcing people to whisper. But I am devout about the method that can outlast it. Patriotism, to me, is standing by the truth even when it’s spoken by someone you dislike.

Dialogue is resistance; listening is courage.

Some nights, when the last call ends, I sit in the quiet studio and hear only the click of the line going dead. But I know the sound that came before it—a mother’s whisper, a teacher’s question, a citizen’s confession—is proof of something still breathing inside the country.

After years of state monologue, the most subversive sound in Iran is a nation talking to itself. Something is stirring beneath the surface, and I can hear it. I hear it every night on the program. Live, raw, and authentic.

I am hopeful.

The Daroyar reform plan, launched to offset price hikes through insurance coverage, has failed to meet its target, leaving patients to shoulder the cost, news outlet Rouydad24 said.

Rising foreign exchange rates, reduced liquidity among importers, and broader inflation have deepened shortages in hospitals and pharmacies. 

Analysts say the crisis is worsened by budget shortfalls in social insurance funds and the influence of monopolistic drug networks, which are accused of hoarding and speculative pricing.

Lawmakers have warned that continued price spikes could spark public anger and further strain Iran’s already fragile healthcare system.

• 

  Iranians feel the pain as medicine market reels from economic pressure

• 

  Iran faces looming medicine shortages as UN sanctions strain drug supply chains

• 

  Rising prices, medicine shortages hit Iran after sanctions return

Foreign currency squeeze

Last month, a leading pharmaceutical industry figure, Mojtaba Sarkandi, told the reformist daily Etemad that Iran faces inevitable production disruptions and severe drug shortages by March, as renewed UN sanctions under the snapback mechanism tighten access to foreign currency and strain supply chains.

“The industry operates on two realities,” Sarkandi said. “While up to 99% of medicines are locally produced, most key ingredients still come from abroad, mainly China and India.”

According to Etemad, Tehran allocated about $3.4 billion in foreign currency for medicine and medical equipment this year, but a 10–20% shortfall has already emerged. Shipping and insurance costs have climbed by as much as 50% since September, and import timelines have doubled to six months.

While sanctions have limited Tehran’s ability to finance imports, industry executives also blame policy missteps, from delayed currency allocation to state-imposed price caps, for deepening the turmoil.

“Sanctions may explain 40% of the crisis,” one executive told Etemad. “The rest stems from domestic policy failures, arbitrary pricing and poor transparency.”