IRAN’S latest wave of unrest has reignited a familiar international debate: where does legitimate protest end and where do violence and foreign interference begin?
Tehran’s response, articulated over recent days, seeks to answer that question by framing the protests as a test not only of economic governance, but of sovereignty, law and social order.
The demonstrations that began on December 28 2025 were, by official accounts, rooted in bread-and-butter concerns.
A sharp rise in foreign exchange rates unsettled traders, particularly in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar and protesters initially took to the streets with focused demands: market stability, economic predictability and relief from currency volatility.
These early gatherings were peaceful, organised and free of confrontation — an exercise of rights Iran says it both recognises and protects.
Tehran has been keen to stress that peaceful assembly is not a concession wrung from the State by international pressure, but a right embedded in its own legal framework.
Keep Reading
- Zim headed for a political dead heat in 2023
- Zec failing to level playing field: CiCZ
- Take Money clinches sponsorship deal
- Zimra targets US$ tax evaders
Officials point to Iran’s Constitution and its commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as evidence that freedom of expression and assembly are neither new nor negotiable principles.
In this telling, lawful protests are not only tolerated, but expected and State institutions are instructed to listen and respond through legal and administrative channels.
Where the government draws a firm line is at violence.
A small number of actors later hijacked the protests, shifting them from economic grievance to armed confrontation.
Attacks on police stations, the use of incendiary devices and gunfire against security forces are proof that these acts bear no relation to legitimate protest.
No State can allow violence to masquerade as dissent without abandoning its basic duty to protect lives and public order.
This distinction was underscored by Iran’s Supreme Leader on January 3 2026, when he called for dialogue with protesters while warning that disorder and destruction cannot be shielded by the language of protest.
The message was echoed by the president’s directive to review all protest-related incidents, with stated commitments to transparency, accountability and due process — an attempt to reassure both domestic and international audiences that security measures will be scrutinised, not rubber-stamped.
At the same time, the government has acknowledged that repression alone cannot resolve economic discontent.
Measures include immediate support for vulnerable groups and consultations with bazaar unions and business communities across major cities.
These steps are an effort to calm markets, stabilise conditions and reconnect policymakers with those feeling the sharpest economic pain.
Yet perhaps the most pointed aspect of Iran’s response has been reserved for foreign capitals.
We sharply condemn statements by Israel’s prime minister and senior US figures, who are inflaming tensions and encouraging instability.
Remarks attributed to the US president, including explicit threats of force, are violations of the UN Charter and the core principle of non-intervention.
From Tehran’s perspective, external actors invoking concern for Iranian protesters ring hollow given decades of sanctions, military incidents and covert actions.
Indeed, sanctions loom large in Iran’s narrative.
Unilateral economic restrictions have constricted trade, drained financial resources and limited access to essential goods — pressures that fall most heavily on ordinary citizens and contribute directly to the grievances now on display.
To encourage unrest while maintaining sanctions is less an act of solidarity than a contradiction.
Iran’s position, then, is an attempt to occupy a narrow but deliberate space: affirming the right to peaceful protest, promising economic engagement and insisting on restraint by security forces — while reserving the right to confront violence and reject foreign interference.
Whether this balance is achieved in practice will be judged not by statements, but by outcomes: by the treatment of protesters, the transparency of investigations and the credibility of economic relief.
For now, Tehran sees the unrest not as a challenge to be crushed, nor as an opportunity for outsiders to exploit, but as a moment to reassert its own red lines.
Protest is legitimate. Violence is not.
And sovereignty, above all, is non-negotiable.
Amir Hossein Hosseini is the Iranian ambassador to Zimbabwe. He writes here in his personal capacity.