Iran International
Many Iranians fear that a diplomatic opening with the United States could come at the cost of renewed social restrictions at home, as reports of stricter hijab enforcement begin circulating following the recent war.
Over recent days, social media users have voiced concern that a period of relative tolerance toward personal freedoms may be coming to an end.
With the immediate external crisis easing and further negotiations with Washington expected, many fear authorities could once again shift their focus to domestic social controls.
There has been no official announcement confirming the return of the morality police. But reports circulating online suggest increased scrutiny of hijab compliance in several cities, particularly the religious centers of Qom and Mashhad, although many of the incidents remain difficult to independently verify.
One widely shared video, which users say was filmed in the holy city of Qom, appears to show male and female officers attempting to persuade a young woman to enter a white van resembling those previously used by the so-called morality police.
In a separate video reportedly filmed in Mashhad, a police officer is seen confronting a young woman riding as a passenger on a motorcycle, telling her to buy a headscarf from a nearby shop before continuing her journey.
Another video from Tehran shows an argument between a young woman and several men. One tells her she has no right to appear without a head covering because it is against the law, while others threaten to call the police.
Optional, or is it?
Social media users have also reported visits by the Public Venues Supervision Office, the police body responsible for monitoring businesses, to inspect compliance with hijab regulations in companies, cafés and restaurants.
"They say hijab has become optional," one user wrote. "It's true that the way we dress has completely changed, both in the street and at work. But during these days of negotiations officials came to inspect our workplace over hijab.
"Imagine the anxiety in a company where most employees are women without hijab, fearing the business could be sealed because of them."
The legal rights group Dadban said reports from different parts of Iran suggested security, law enforcement and judicial institutions had once again increased their focus on domestic social control.
"Measures taken in recent weeks, from intensified street enforcement to growing pressure on citizens, point to the return of this approach," the group said.
"It appears that, following the reduction of external tensions, the responsible institutions have once again prioritized internal control and restricting individual and social freedoms."
Wartime tolerance, post-war uncertainty
During the war, state media and some officials openly welcomed the participation of unveiled women in pro-government gatherings. Images of women without head coverings were broadcast on state television, breaking with longstanding editorial practice.
At one gathering, organizers even projected a performance by a Lebanese female singer onto a large screen, challenging the state's longstanding ban on solo female singing.
Those departures from established norms unsettled many hardline supporters of the Islamic Republic. Now, with a memorandum signed with the United States and the prospect of further negotiations ahead, some Iranians fear authorities could seek to reassure conservative constituencies by tightening social controls once again.
Others worry that radical groups could feel emboldened to intervene directly under the principle of "enjoining good and forbidding wrong," a religious doctrine frequently invoked to justify policing perceived moral violations.
"After an agreement, what can their street forces do?" one social media user wrote. "Will they once again be unleashed on the public over hijab and other issues? A confrontation between society and the state lies ahead."
Another predicted authorities would intensify hijab enforcement and close cafés to appease conservatives opposed to rapprochement with Washington.
Political scientist Morteza Nemati urged caution over reports of the morality police's return but highlighted what he saw as an irony.
"I don't know how accurate the reports about relaunching the morality police are," he wrote on X. "But if you do bring them back, please be careful not to accidentally arrest the same unveiled women whose images you were showing at the nighttime rallies."
Speaking in Switzerland on Monday, Vance said Washington could agree to release frozen Iranian funds for purchases of US agricultural products such as wheat, corn and soybeans.
"If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people," Vance said.
He said the United States and Qatar would oversee the process, though Iranian officials have disputed that characterization.
Trump made similar remarks on Tuesday, saying money taken out of Iran would go to American farmers to provide “corn, soybeans, wheat to Iran.”
“They have a hunger problem, they have a food problem, they have a medicine problem, they got a lot of problems,” Trump said, adding that inflation in Iran had “hit 300%.”
The remarks sparked widespread reactions from Iran International's viewers, many of whom said the country's struggle cannot be reduced to hunger.
"American officials talk about hunger in Iran as if our problem is a lack of food. Everything exists here. Government policies have made food unaffordable. Sending grain won't solve our problems," one viewer told Iran International.
While many respondents acknowledged the country's worsening economic crisis, they argued that inflation, corruption and decades of mismanagement—not a shortage of food—have made life increasingly difficult.
Others said they have little faith that any economic relief provided to the Islamic Republic would ultimately benefit ordinary citizens.
"Right now the Islamic Republic is probably figuring out how to send that wheat to Lebanon and Iraq," one viewer wrote.
The comment was a reference to the Islamic Republic's long-standing support for regional militant allies and proxy groups. Many respondents argued that Tehran has repeatedly prioritized its regional strategy over the welfare of its own citizens.
Several viewers also objected to what they saw as a portrayal of Iranians as a population waiting to be fed.
"The people of Iran are not hungry. They sacrificed their lives and shed blood for freedom," one respondent said.
Many pointed to the nationwide protests of January 2026, arguing that the movement was driven by demands for freedom and political change rather than economic assistance.
Some referenced the symbolic scene in Abdanan, where protesters threw rice into the air during demonstrations. Videos from the western city showed protesters throwing rice into the air, a gesture many interpreted as a rejection of the idea that their uprising was driven by hunger.
"Mr. Vance, you were not there during those January nights in Abdanan when grains of rice fell from the sky like snow," one citizen wrote.
For many respondents, the image symbolized dignity and defiance. They argued that while many Iranians are struggling economically, the country's crisis is ultimately one of governance and freedom.
They did not deny the depth of economic hardship, but said reducing Iran’s crisis to hunger ignored the political nature of their struggle.
Others stressed that Iran is not a poor country lacking resources.
"Our problem with the Islamic Republic is not only economic. It is a government that opposes human dignity, personal freedoms and Iran's ancient national culture. It is governed by ideology and follows a path separate from the Iranian people," one viewer wrote.
Another respondent was blunter.
"Mr. Vance, Iran is a rich country. If you don't believe me, ask Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular Mobilization Forces and the Houthis."
The reactions reveal deep skepticism among Iranians who wrote to Iran International toward any agreement that could provide financial relief to the Islamic Republic. For them, the issue is not hunger alone, but freedom, dignity and who ultimately benefits when money flows back into the hands of Tehran.
