Iran International
The looming end of Payman Jebelli’s term as head of Iran’s state broadcaster has become a political test of whether the country’s new leadership is prepared to rein in hardliners accused of hijacking public media.
Iranians frustrated with years of one-sided, hardline coverage by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, or IRIB, are increasingly watching the possible leadership change as an early sign of whether the system intends to correct course.
Radical anti-diplomacy factions have long used IRIB, whose chief is directly appointed by the supreme leader, to undermine pragmatist efforts toward a breakthrough with Washington.
That pressure continued even during the weeklong funeral ceremonies for former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, when hardline voices on state television kept attacking attempts to shift the country away from wartime confrontation.
As Jebelli’s five-year term nears its end, criticism of his tenure and his ultraconservative Paydari Party allies has moved from reformist circles into more mainstream political commentary.
Jebelli and his cultural deputy Vahid Jalili, the brother of senior conservative politician Saeed Jalili, are widely regarded by critics as key figures behind IRIB’s hardline editorial line, particularly its hostility toward the government’s diplomatic and postwar agenda.
Many Iranians and media analysts now view a possible shakeup at the broadcaster as a signal of whether Iran’s new leadership is willing to curb unilateral rhetoric and restore a degree of institutional balance to state media.
A commentary on the moderate news site Asr-e Iran, headlined “Countdown to the Start of Changes in the IRIB,” said the political fallout over the broadcaster’s recent censorship of Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf had reached senior levels of the establishment.
According to the report, the incident is no longer being treated as a routine editorial or executive mistake, but as a threat to national security and internal cohesion at a sensitive moment of postwar realignment.
The outlet said a political “countdown” had begun behind closed doors, pointing to a possible restructuring aimed at ending radical factions’ grip over the state’s most powerful media platform.
Asr-e Iran argued that IRIB had crossed a major political red line by turning a partisan media dispute into a broader governance crisis. It said a publicly funded broadcaster could not be allowed to become “the private clubhouse of an extremist faction” defying what it described as the official consensus of the governing branches.
The commentary said the current management model at IRIB had become an internal obstacle to the state’s strategic direction and called for a purge of the broadcaster’s leadership.
'IRIB deepens state-society divide'
Earlier this week, the pro-reform daily Arman-e Melli also described IRIB’s abrupt censorship of relatively moderate figures, including Ghalibaf, as evidence of a deeper institutional crisis within Iran’s political elite.
The paper accused IRIB’s leadership of being “hijacked by a narrow, radical faction allied with hardline rejectionists” and said the broadcaster was using public media to suppress even official state narratives when they conflicted with factional interests.
By censoring the head of the legislative branch at a time when he is seeking to move the country from wartime footing toward economic reconstruction, the daily argued, IRIB had openly damaged the appearance of internal unity.
Arman-e Melli said the broadcaster had deepened the divide between the state and society and shown that it could not tolerate even the official narrative of a conservative parliament speaker.
In a separate commentary in the same paper, reformist figure Hassan Rasouli offered a broader critique of factional infighting, arguing that public dissent by hardline elements weakens the state’s leverage in international negotiations.
Rasouli called for a temporary freeze on factional rivalry, saying domestic media platforms should serve as pillars of administrative cohesion during a critical geopolitical transition. He argued that projecting strategic stability abroad requires protecting the executive branch from internal sabotage at home.
The debate over IRIB comes as Iran’s new leadership faces growing scrutiny over whether promised or anticipated institutional changes will materialize.
Earlier this week, Judiciary Chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei was reinstated, disappointing many Iranians, particularly human rights advocates who had hoped for change.
If Jebelli and his team are also reinstated at IRIB, public frustration is likely to deepen and reinforce the perception that the system remains unwilling to reform its most unilateral and hardline institutions.
Images and videos from Tehran's prayer ground complex prompted widespread discussion among Iranians, with many saying attendance fell short despite an extensive state mobilization effort.
Messages sent to Iran International argued authorities relied on government employees, security forces, organized transportation, free meals and public holidays to maximize turnout, yet still failed to fill the designated venue.
For many, the relatively sparse gathering represented more than a logistical disappointment. They viewed it as evidence of a widening gap between the establishment and society, arguing the Islamic Republic could no longer convincingly stage large public displays of popular support.
Several citizens contrasted the official portrayal of the funeral as a demonstration of national unity with what they described as a subdued public response after nearly five decades of clerical rule.
Symbolism meets economic hardship
Many reactions focused on the economic contrast between the scale of the ceremony and the financial pressures facing ordinary Iranians.
Iranians questioned the use of public resources for an elaborate state funeral at a time when inflation, declining purchasing power and rising living costs continue to dominate daily life.
Several described households that have reduced or eliminated meat and other protein from their diets, arguing that spending on ceremonial events appeared disconnected from the country's economic realities.
Others said successive crises – including war, sanctions, regional isolation and economic decline – had not altered what they viewed as the system's priority of funding state institutions and political messaging ahead of public welfare.
Contradictory political messaging
Another frequently discussed issue involved videos circulating on social media showing participants symbolically pelting an image of US President Donald Trump with stones during the funeral events.
Some citizens highlighted what they saw as a contradiction between anti-US demonstrations and expectations that Iranian and US officials could resume negotiations in the near future.
They argued that confrontational domestic messaging has repeatedly existed alongside diplomatic engagement, reflecting what they described as two parallel tracks in the Islamic Republic's foreign policy.
Questions over the cost
No official estimate has been released for the total cost of the funeral and burial ceremonies.
Nevertheless, many messages attempted to estimate the overall expenditure by citing security deployments, temporary infrastructure, transportation, accommodation, food distribution, ceremonial preparations and construction work carried out along the procession route.
Some suggested the total bill could approach $800 million, although no official evidence has been presented to support that figure.
The estimate prompted comparisons with recent funerals for other world leaders.
Several people pointed to the funeral of Elizabeth II in 2022, which the British government estimated cost around £162 million – roughly $200 million at contemporary exchange rates. The event included days of public lying-in-state, thousands of police and military personnel, extensive international participation and worldwide television coverage.
Others referred to the funerals of Omani Sultan Qaboos bin Said and Kuwaiti Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, both of which followed Islamic tradition with relatively swift burial ceremonies. Although no comprehensive official costs were released, participants noted those events appeared considerably more modest despite taking place in wealthy Persian Gulf monarchies.
Debate over public priorities
Many also drew comparisons with the Islamic Republic's longstanding criticism of the lavish celebrations marking the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Emire under the Pahlavi dynasty.
They questioned why authorities that had long condemned those celebrations as wasteful were now directing substantial public funds toward a funeral ceremony during a period of economic hardship.
Several messages further said that the system has never devoted comparable financial and organizational resources to national celebrations such as Nowruz, Yalda Night or Chaharshanbe Suri, despite their broad cultural significance.
For many, the debate surrounding the funeral extended beyond attendance or cost. They said the ceremony reflected broader concerns about state priorities, economic management and political legitimacy.
Rather than reinforcing the image of a confident political system, citizens argued the funeral underscored the difficulties facing a regime confronting deep economic challenges and declining public trust, even as it sought to present the burial of its longtime leader as a demonstration of continuity and authority.
