Iran International
While Tehran celebrates Donald Trump's midterm defeat and the economic pain the Iran war has inflicted on Americans, soaring prices and stagnant wages are pushing ordinary Iranians deeper into a cost-of-living crisis at home.
Senior Iranian officials have come close to claiming credit for the Democrats' sweeping election victory, frequently pointing to US officials' acknowledgment that the war contributed to Republican losses.
Many Iranian newspapers have followed suit, dwelling on America's economic and political troubles while portraying Iran as a country growing stronger despite the war.
"Ever-Stronger Iran on the Road to Progress," one economic daily declared on its front page on Thursday. Another proclaimed "American Humiliation Continues," alongside a photograph of a seemingly dejected Trump.
The hardline daily Kayhan highlighted what it described as €127 billion in European losses resulting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, presenting the economic damage as a measure of Tehran's success.
Largely absent from those triumphant headlines was the economic crisis that matters most to ordinary Iranians: the soaring cost of living.
The labour-focused news agency ILNA offered a starkly different picture, reporting that the estimated cost of basic household necessities had nearly doubled in seven months to 85 million tomans a month, almost six times the monthly earnings of an ordinary worker.
Labour expert Hamid Haji-Esmaeili told ILNA that inflation had become "normalised" in the thinking of Iranian officials, criticising the government's inadequate response and calling for wages to be revised midway through the year.
Pay levels set at the beginning of the Iranian calendar year no longer reflected economic realities, he argued, warning that the crisis was no longer confined to low-income workers but also affected civil servants and large sections of the middle class.
Economist Ali Ghanbari, also quoted by ILNA, described Iran as facing a "livelihood crisis", warning of a severe decline in the purchasing power of lower-income households.
Another ILNA report highlighted delayed wage payments for contract workers in Iran's southern oil-producing regions, adding to the uncertainty facing employees already struggling with inflation.
Growing calls to expand food-support programmes suggest that wages alone are no longer sufficient to protect many households from the rising cost of essential goods.
Years of inflation, currency depreciation, sanctions and inadequate investment had already eroded living standards. Two rounds of war in 2025 and 2026, and the subsequent US blockade of Iran's maritime trade, have compounded those pressures.
The government's response has come under increasing criticism, particularly over its failure to adjust wages and pensions to reflect the rapidly rising cost of living.
Pensioners have been among the most vocal groups demanding action. ILNA reported calls for authorities to restore their purchasing power immediately, as housing, healthcare and other essential expenses consumed an increasing share of their incomes.
In another report, a representative of military pensioners' organisations criticised repeated discussions about wage increases that had produced no concrete results.
He warned against creating "false hope" among pensioners frustrated by promises of financial relief that have yet to translate into higher payments.
Pensioners are among Iran's more organised social groups and have staged repeated demonstrations in recent years over inadequate incomes and rising prices.
Yet the emphasis in hardline political rhetoric remains on the costs Iran has imposed on its adversaries.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on international energy markets have been presented as evidence of Tehran's leverage over Western economies.
Such claims of success sit uneasily alongside accounts of hardship emerging from Iran's own media, where journalists operate under restrictions on reporting deemed damaging to the Islamic Republic's image.
For workers awaiting overdue wages and pensioners demanding relief, the economic pain inflicted on Iran's adversaries offers little consolation. Their immediate concern is whether they can pay next month's rent and put food on the table.
Iranian commentators are divided over JD Vance's remarks on the political costs of the war with Iran, with some seeing evidence of tensions within the Trump administration and others warning that he may be trying to lure Tehran into a disadvantageous deal.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Vance identified ending the war and reassessing relations with Israel among the priorities of voters who supported Donald Trump in 2024 but switched to Democrats in Tuesday's midterm elections.
Iran's parliament speaker and chief negotiator, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, quoted Vance's post to challenge the Trump administration's approach to the war and its relationship with Israel.
Iranian media have since offered differing interpretations of Vance's intentions and his influence over US policy.
The analytical website Vana News said the vice president's remarks highlighted differences in how senior US officials assessed the costs and future of the war, but cautioned against interpreting them as evidence of an irreconcilable rift.
“Differences in perspective do not necessarily mean a breakdown in political cooperation or an irreconcilable conflict between the president and his deputy,” Vana News wrote, adding that it remained unclear whether such differences would affect Washington's policy decisions.
‘Self-interest’
Mohsen Zahedi-Movahed, a retired diplomat and international affairs analyst, was more emphatic.
“Vance's admission that the war was the first reason voters were angry with Republicans is extremely important. How will Trump respond? The divide they wanted to create among Iranian leaders has now come back to haunt them!” he wrote on X.
Ali Nasri, a pro-government commentator, argued that Vance's apparent differences with Trump over Israel predated the Republican election defeat.
“[Vance realised] that his own political future and the survival of the entire America First movement depend on distancing himself from Israel and ending the war with Iran,” Nasri wrote on X. “We paid a heavy price to reach this position of strength,” he added.
‘Prelude to war’
But Parisa Nasr, a hardline journalist, warned against interpreting Vance's remarks as an encouraging sign, describing them as “another episode in Vance's double game.”
She accused Vance of pursuing an electoral and geopolitical manoeuvre designed to appeal to American voters while encouraging Iranian officials who favour an agreement with Washington.
Nasr also linked the remarks to mediation efforts by Qatar and Pakistan, warning that Tehran could be drawn into an agreement that would leave it vulnerable to renewed conflict.
“Even if it leads to an immediate asymmetric agreement, it is a prelude to the next war and poses a very serious danger,” she wrote.
Diplomacy continues
Asked on Wednesday whether he agreed that the war had contributed to the Republicans' defeat, Trump said it was “largely true” but defended his decision to attack Iran, insisting that military action was necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The debate over Vance's intentions comes against the backdrop of a letter he sent in late October to Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, to which Tehran has not formally responded.
According to US media reports, Vance called for the immediate start of comprehensive negotiations, including on Iran's nuclear programme, and expressed his readiness to lead the American delegation in talks with Iranian officials.
Rezaei said on October 31 that he had read the letter, delivered through Qatar, but had not yet responded. He described its tone as different from previous communications from Washington, calling it “a good sign” that demonstrated Iran had consolidated its power.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei struck a more cautious note on November 2, saying Tehran would judge Washington by its actions rather than the tone of its letters.
Iran, home to the world's second-largest natural gas reserves, is turning to Russia for supplies as war damage and years of underinvestment threaten to deepen an energy crisis ahead of winter.
After meeting President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on November 5, Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei said the two countries had discussed pipelines to ease Iran's gas shortages and supply neighbouring markets.
The proposal offers potential relief, but raises a larger question: whether Russian imports will help Iran repair its struggling energy system or merely postpone the reforms needed to make it work.
On November 1, National Iranian Gas Company chief Saeed Tavakoli said attacks on four processing facilities had removed 230 million cubic metres of daily capacity. Repairs had restored 100 million, leaving 130 million unavailable.
Tavakoli warned that Iran could face a peak winter shortfall of around 400 million cubic metres a day. The figure is an official estimate for periods of maximum demand, not a year-round deficit.
The consequences are already visible. Gas supplies to cement plants were cut from October 23, according to an industry representative, forcing factories to switch to fuel oil. Such rationing protects household heating but disrupts production, increases costs and worsens air pollution.
The US Energy Information Administration estimated that the country produced 9.4 trillion cubic feet of gas in 2023 while consuming 8.9 trillion, leaving a narrow margin that conceals much sharper winter shortages.
Heavily subsidised prices encourage consumption, while inadequate investment, limited storage and restricted access to technology constrain supply. The giant South Pars field also needs investment to counter declining reservoir pressure.
Sanctions have obstructed financing and equipment purchases, but Tehran's policies have compounded the problem. Expanding dependence on cheap gas without sufficient investment in efficiency and production has left the economy vulnerable whenever temperatures fall.
Russian imports could provide breathing space. They cannot correct those weaknesses by themselves.
Iran and Russia have discussed gas cooperation for more than two years, but announcements have repeatedly outpaced delivery. Gazprom and the National Iranian Gas Company signed a memorandum in June 2024.
In January 2025, Putin outlined initial supplies of 2 billion cubic metres annually, potentially rising to 55 billion. Iranian officials announced further progress in October 2026, but a firm delivery date and financing for a major pipeline remain unclear.
Two billion cubic metres annually averages just 5.5 million cubic metres a day, less than 2% of Iran's estimated peak winter shortfall. Even the ambitious target of 55 billion annually averages about 151 million cubic metres a day.
These comparisons illustrate scale rather than guaranteed winter deliveries, which would depend on contracts, pipeline capacity and seasonal demand. Initial imports could help particular regions or industries but would make only a modest difference nationally.
Existing infrastructure through Azerbaijan could carry limited initial supplies. Reaching the larger target would require substantial investment in pipelines and equipment, transit agreements and reliable delivery arrangements.
Commercial terms also remain uncertain. Pricing and payment arrangements were still unresolved earlier this year, and subsequent announcements have not disclosed the details. Selling imported gas into Iran's heavily subsidised domestic market could increase pressure on public finances.
US sanctions could complicate financing and payments, although certain natural gas transactions are exempt from specific restrictions. Other sanctions affecting banks, contractors and designated companies would still need to be navigated.
For Moscow, the attraction is clear. Having lost much of its European pipeline market, Russia needs alternative buyers. Iran offers substantial demand and potential access to neighbouring markets.
But the partnership could come with unequal leverage. Tehran urgently needs gas, infrastructure and financing, while Moscow has supplies to sell. Dependence on Russian equipment, funding and deliveries could leave Iran with fewer options when negotiating prices and future commitments.
The arrangement also fits Tehran's ambition to become a regional gas trading hub. Yet that ambition faces a basic credibility test: can Iran reliably supply neighbouring countries when it struggles to meet domestic demand during winter?
Russian gas could support regional trade, but Iran risks becoming primarily a route for Russian exports without gaining meaningful control over prices or supply.
Ultimately, imports could help keep factories operating and reduce emergency fuel switching. Lasting energy security, however, requires repairing damaged facilities, sustaining production at South Pars and improving efficiency, alongside gradual subsidy reform that protects poorer households.
For a country with the world's second-largest gas reserves, the need to import is itself a measure of striking energy system deterioration. Whether the arrangement helps reverse that decline or just deepens Tehran's dependence on Moscow matters far more than the volume of gas promised.
President Donald Trump's sweeping midterm defeat has sparked a debate in Tehran over whether Iran should seize the opportunity to negotiate a deal with Washington or maintain pressure through its control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Reformist and pragmatic conservative publications have urged Iranian leaders to exploit the shifting political climate in the United States to secure economic concessions, while hardline outlets argue that Tehran should preserve its maritime leverage regardless of the election outcome.
The debate comes as Iran faces mounting economic pressure, with inflation nearing triple digits, industrial shortages and shipping restrictions disrupting supplies of essential goods.
Reformist newspaper Shargh focused on the country's economic struggles, welcoming Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's proposal for implementing de-escalation measures in the Strait of Hormuz within two days.
Pragmatic conservative Khorasan, which is close to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, urged lawmakers to pursue a negotiated settlement while ensuring parliamentary oversight of the proposed two-day mechanism.
The convergence suggests that support for exploring a deal extends beyond Iran's reformist camp, despite differences in political priorities.
‘Rescue the economy’
Sobh-e No, another conservative newspaper aligned with Ghalibaf, argued that Tehran should make the most of Trump's defeat to secure binding economic commitments.
Even Hamshahri, owned by the hardliner-led Tehran Municipality, called for swift diplomatic action, warning that shipping disruptions in the Persian Gulf were straining domestic supply chains and contributing to soaring food prices.
The US naval blockade has compounded Iran's economic crisis, effectively halting its oil exports and disrupting other maritime trade. Iran has not loaded oil for export since mid-August, according to shipping data from Kpler.
Together, these arguments reflect a calculation that Iran's maritime leverage may be more valuable if converted into immediate economic relief than maintained indefinitely.
‘Maintain pressure’
Hardline publications, however, showed little enthusiasm for changing Tehran's position.
Kayhan argued that the political balance in Washington had no bearing on what it described as Iran's "operational dominance" in Hormuz.
Javan similarly maintained that Tehran should continue using the strategic waterway to pressure Washington, regardless of which party controls Congress.
The English-language Tehran Times argued that the elections had changed neither Iran's ability to restrict maritime traffic nor its conditions for de-escalation.
Some conservative commentary also portrayed Vice President JD Vance's diplomatic outreach as evidence that the Trump administration was under pressure from high energy prices and difficulties securing maritime traffic.
Under this interpretation, the election results reinforced Washington's vulnerability but offered little reason for Tehran to soften its demands.
‘Beware miscalculation’
Other conservative publications struck a more cautious tone.
Resalat warned against assuming the election results would fundamentally change Washington's approach to Tehran, arguing that the United States remained an unreliable negotiating partner regardless of which party controlled Congress.
Jomhouri Eslami, meanwhile, cautioned that assuming Washington would indefinitely tolerate the closure of Hormuz could invite a wider regional war.
The competing assessments come as Tehran pursues diplomatic contacts beyond Washington.
On Thursday, Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow and delivered a message from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, Iranian state media reported.
The question facing Iranian policymakers is whether Trump's electoral setback offers a chance to secure concessions or whether maintaining pressure will yield better terms, and how long Iran can afford to wait.
Iranian hardliners are calling for continued pressure on Washington following the US midterm elections, arguing that the war has exacted a political price on Republicans but that Democratic gains offer little prospect of a change in US policy toward Tehran.
The argument featured prominently on Iranian state television on Thursday, where commentators urged Iran to maintain its leverage through the Strait of Hormuz, warning that easing pressure could allow the United States to continue its naval blockade even after the war formally ends.
Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei dismissed hopes that changes in the balance of power in Washington could lead to a softer American approach.
In a message published Wednesday to mark Iran's National Day of Fighting Global Arrogance, Khamenei described as "seriously mistaken" those who retain "even the slightest hope for a change in behavior or shifts in political parties and factions" in the United States.
He warned that even a limited inclination toward surrender would weaken the government's domestic support and encourage further American demands.
Keeping up the pressure
Vahid Khazab, a regular panellist on the state television programme Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time), said Democrats were unlikely to oppose the US naval blockade of Iran on principle.
"I have not heard anyone come forward and say that a naval blockade is wrong," he said. "They would not oppose a blockade unless it became costly too."
Khazab argued that Iran should keep the Strait of Hormuz completely closed to make the US naval blockade as costly for Washington as the war itself, warning that the blockade's continuation could effectively prolong the conflict even after hostilities formally end.
The remarks reflected an argument among hardline commentators that Tehran should preserve its economic and strategic leverage rather than interpret the Democratic victories as an opening for compromise.
Claiming a political victory
Senior Iranian officials and pro-establishment media have portrayed the Democrats' gains as a consequence of the political and economic costs of the war.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, wrote on X that Iran had inflicted a strategic defeat on Trump on the battlefield and in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as a political defeat in Washington.
The hardline newspaper Javan, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, declared that "Iran won the election in America," describing the Democratic victory as a political aftershock of Trump's conduct of the war.
Khazab pointed to rising gasoline, diesel and fertiliser prices, arguing that the war had contributed to Republican losses in agricultural states such as Iowa and Kansas.
"What caused the high prices of gasoline, diesel, and chemical fertilizers?" he asked. "Was it Trump's personality? Was it Trump's corruption and that of his sons? Was it Elon Musk? No, it was the war."
The programme's presenter said the significance of the elections lay not in a Democratic victory but in "the defeat of the Republicans because of the policies they adopted" toward Iran.
No expectations of Democrats
The commentators also warned against repeating what they regarded as misplaced optimism following Joe Biden's victory over Trump in 2020.
Nima Akbarkhani, another regular panellist, criticised reformists who had expected Biden to restore the 2015 nuclear agreement after Trump withdrew from it in 2018. Although Biden returned the United States to several international agreements abandoned by Trump, his administration did not rejoin the nuclear deal.
"Why didn't he return to the JCPOA?" Akbarkhani asked, referring to the agreement by its formal abbreviation. "Because they were telling themselves that this was once again the time to enter new negotiations and secure further concessions."
Mohammad Saleh Jowkar, a member of parliament, echoed Khamenei's warning in comments to the Mehr News Agency.
"It is absolutely unacceptable for some to assume that the arrival of the Democrats, a change in the composition of the US Senate or House of Representatives, or political developments in that country have created conditions for negotiations and concessions," he said.
Khazab added that the US elections were worth examining, if only because "understanding the enemy's camp is essential," he said.
Unpaid insurance reimbursements and rising medicine and equipment prices are draining private hospitals' finances, threatening their ability to maintain services and increasing costs for patients, hospital executives said in accounts published on Thursday.
A journalist in Iran described the financial pressures facing non-government hospitals following a meeting of hospital directors, with some executives saying insurers had failed to settle bills dating back to the Iranian calendar year that ended in March 2025.
One director of a major hospital in a provincial capital said the facility had contracts with about 35 basic and supplementary insurers, welfare departments, banks and other institutions, none of which had settled their outstanding bills for that year.
The largest unpaid balances belonged to Dey and Dana Insurance, the director said.
The financial shortfalls come as hospitals face rapidly increasing costs for medicines and medical supplies, with treatment tariffs adjusted annually even as procurement prices change daily.
A director overseeing another hospital with more than 1,200 medical and administrative employees said inflation had made it increasingly difficult to replace medicines and supplies after use.
The price of Ringer's solution, a commonly used intravenous fluid, had increased by 600 percent over three years, the director said.
Insulin and widely used blood pressure medications have also risen in price by as much as 50 percent over the past month.
Some retirees said these medicines were unavailable at Social Security medical facilities, forcing them to seek supplies from other pharmacies.
Hospital costs rise faster than treatment tariffs
One private hospital with more than 300 beds and nearly 20 operating rooms has established a separate department to update medicine prices because they change daily, its director said.
The hospital is not profitable, with revenue covering only operating expenses and staff salaries, according to the director.
The mismatch between changing procurement costs and annually fixed treatment tariffs has added to the financial pressures on hospitals already waiting for overdue insurance payments.
The difficulties extend to Iran's public health insurance system.
Inflation and rising expenditure have created an imbalance between resources and spending at the Iran Health Insurance Organization since the second half of the Iranian calendar year beginning in March 2024, its chief executive Mohammad Mehdi Nasehi said on October 24.
The Health Ministry owed the organization 420 trillion rials (about $157 million), while shares worth 850 trillion rials (about $318 million) transferred to settle outstanding receivables had not been converted into cash, Nasehi said.
Those figures cover the organization's wider network of contracted providers rather than the outstanding debts owed to individual hospitals.
Iran's Social Security Organization announced on November 3 that it had paid 50 trillion rials (about $19 million) to private pharmacies, family physicians and university-affiliated and private medical facilities.
The announcement did not specify how much of the outstanding debt to hospitals remained unpaid.
Patients face higher costs and reduced coverage
Private hospital executives said rising foreign exchange rates and tighter sanctions could make obtaining medicines and medical equipment more difficult.
Patients are also facing higher treatment costs and restrictions on insurance coverage, adding to the financial pressures across Iran's healthcare system.
The removal of some injectable medicines from outpatient insurance coverage is among the changes that could increase patients' out-of-pocket expenses.
Some retirees have stopped visiting doctors or purchasing medicines because of treatment costs, retirement rights advocate Ali Akbar Eyvazi told the ILNA news agency on Thursday, November 5.
The removal of medicines from insurance coverage had extended to commonly used diabetes and blood pressure treatments, Eyvazi said.
Prices for some pharmaceutical products have increased by as much as 380 percent in recent months, while patients have described shortages and rising insulin prices.
