Iran Unfiltered - NIAC's periodic digest tracking the latest from Iran ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #fff; text-align: center; padding: 12px 0 15px;"><a href="#" style="mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1%; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="[link removed]" style="line-height: 1%; margin: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; width: 130px;" /> </a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #222; text-align: center; padding: 0;"><a href="[link removed]" style="display: block; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1%; text-decoration: none; padding: 0 15px;" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="[link removed]" style="line-height: 1%; margin: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; height: 82px; width: 505px;" /> </a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
</table>

We invite you to visit and subscribe to our new Substack, NIAC Insights [[link removed]] , where we will be posting both Iran Unfiltered and other original content throughout the week.



Week of October 13, 2025 [[link removed]] | Iran Unfiltered is a digest tracking Iranian politics & society by the National Iranian American Council

* Shamkhani and Aghamiri Emphasize Nuclear Capability and Restraint [[link removed]]
* China and Russia Reject Snapback as Iran’s Oil Fleet Briefly Goes Visible [[link removed]]
* Cultural Policing and Religious Control in Iran: From “Sacred Dolls” to the Hijab Enforcement Campaign [[link removed]]
* Tamadon Novin Eslami: Ambitions, Critiques, and Political Roots [[link removed]]
* Zarif and Lavrov: A Clash of Eras in Iran’s Foreign Policy [[link removed]]
* Remembering Nasser Taghvai: The Conscience of Iranian Cinema [[link removed]]

Shamkhani and Aghamiri Emphasize Nuclear Capability and Restraint [[link removed]]
Recent statements by Ali Shamkhani, senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader and former secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and Mahmoudreza Aghamiri, head of Shahid Beheshti University and a leading nuclear scientist, have reignited debate over Iran’s nuclear intentions . Both officials emphasized that Iran possesses the scientific and technical capability to build a nuclear weapon, while simultaneously asserting that the country does not intend to do so under current policy, citing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s religious decree (fatwa) prohibiting weapons of mass destruction. Yet both men also implied that this restraint is a matter of choice, not limitation, and that the fatwa “can change” should circumstances demand it.

Ali Shamkhani, speaking in the televised program Narrative of War , was asked whether he had ever considered pursuing nuclear weapons during his tenure as defense minister in the 1990s . His response was striking: “I wish I had thought about it… Today it’s proven that Iran should have built such a capability.” When pressed again, he added, “Yes, if I returned to that era, I would definitely pursue the bomb.” Shamkhani explained that the political atmosphere of the 1990s, defined by the reformist “Dialogue of Civilizations,” made such ambitions implausible at the time. His words were widely interpreted as a retrospective endorsement of nuclear deterrence, signaling that Iran’s leadership increasingly views nuclear deterrence as an asset for survival in an increasingly hostile environment – even if the current Supreme Leader does not appear to have shifted his view.

In a separate interview, Mahmoudreza Aghamiri echoed this theme of capability coupled with restraint . He declared that Iran “has the ability and possibility to build an atomic bomb” but “has no intention of doing so,” crediting Khamenei’s fatwa for preventing weaponization. However, Aghamiri also stressed that “a fatwa can be changed at any time, since it is the opinion of a jurist.” He elaborated that if Iran were forced into a confrontation — as he phrased it, “if they overturn the table, we will too” — the country would be ready to act decisively. His remarks underscored that Iran’s restraint is political, not technical.

Aghamiri’s interview also offered rare personal testimony about the twelve-day Iran–Israel war, in which he said six of his colleagues from Shahid Beheshti University’s nuclear physics department were killed . He described the chaos of that night, recounting how he was warned to flee his home amid missile attacks and later learned that several leading nuclear scientists, including Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, had been killed. He insisted that despite these losses, Iran “still possesses the knowledge” to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, claiming that the attacks targeted scientists rather than the Atomic Energy Organization itself. He rejected Western claims that Iran’s key nuclear facilities were destroyed, asking rhetorically, “If they truly destroyed everything, why can’t they let go?”

Throughout the interview, Aghamiri portrayed nuclear expertise itself as a form of deterrent power . “Simply having the technology is a deterrent,” he said, suggesting that nuclear knowledge grants Iran strategic leverage even without a weapon. He added that training students in nuclear physics inevitably includes understanding “how a bomb works,” and that “if the country ever needed it, everything could be done.” Such remarks reveal how Iran’s nuclear establishment frames its scientific achievements as both peaceful progress and implicit deterrence.

Both Shamkhani and Aghamiri framed Iran’s nuclear stance as a balance between religious principle and national security pragmatism . They reaffirmed that Khamenei’s fatwa forbids the use or production of nuclear weapons, yet both acknowledged the conditional nature of that ruling. Shamkhani’s retrospective statement — that he would have pursued nuclear arms had he known what the future held — and Aghamiri’s insistence that Iran has the technical ability to do so but chooses not to, together mark a subtle but significant rhetorical shift.

Their combined message projects dual signaling: to domestic audiences, that Iran remains committed to sovereignty and scientific independence; to foreign powers, that Tehran’s nuclear potential is real and restrained only by political and religious discretion . In an environment of renewed UN sanctions, intensifying Western pressure, and growing military tensions with Israel, these statements blur the line between reassurance and deterrence — reinforcing the perception that Iran stands on the threshold of nuclear capability, limited not by capacity, but by choice.

China and Russia Reject Snapback Sanctions as Iran’s Oil Fleet Briefly Goes Visible Amid Renewed U.S. Pressure [[link removed]]
China and Russia have firmly rejected the reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran under the so-called “snapback mechanism,” pledging to deepen military and economic cooperation with Tehran despite Western efforts to revive restrictions . Meanwhile, Iran’s oil tankers briefly reappeared on global tracking systems for the first time in seven years, before suddenly going dark again, triggering speculation about internal divisions, sabotage, or calculated signaling by Tehran.

Last month, Britain, France, and Germany invoked the snapback clause of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, reactivating six prior UN Security Council resolutions that had been waived under the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) . The United States, Japan, Turkey, and several other countries have since joined the enforcement effort, while Russia and China have refused to recognize the snapback, calling it illegal and politically motivated.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would continue military and technical cooperation with Iran “in full compliance with international law .” He emphasized that Russia does not recognize the resolutions, which include an arms embargo, and will supply Iran with whatever equipment it needs. “After the lifting of UN sanctions, there are no restrictions on our cooperation with Iran,” Lavrov said, reaffirming that the Russian-Iranian partnership operates “in accordance with international law.”

In parallel, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun condemned U.S. and European sanctions, declaring that China “firmly opposes unilateral and illegal restrictions” and will take “all necessary measures” to protect the rights of its citizens and companies . “Normal cooperation with Iran within the framework of international law is legitimate and reasonable,” he said, stressing that China will continue to safeguard its energy security and resist external pressure.

These positions come amid a new wave of U.S. sanctions announced on October 8, targeting nearly 100 individuals, companies, and tankers accused of facilitating Iran’s oil and petrochemical trade . Among them are the Shandong Jincheng Petrochemical Group and the Rizhao Xinhua crude terminal — major Chinese firms allegedly importing millions of barrels of Iranian crude since 2023. The U.S. Treasury also blacklisted 12 vessels from Iran’s “shadow fleet,” accusing them of helping Tehran evade sanctions through ship-to-ship transfers and false documentation.

Despite the sanctions, Iran’s oil production and exports remain resilient, estimated at around 2.1 million barrels per day (bpd) in September 2025 — a record high since the Trump administration reimposed sanctions in 2018 . Most of this crude reportedly goes to private Chinese refineries, with China now accounting for roughly 13.6% of its total oil imports from Iran.

The more surprising development came in mid-October 2025, when the maritime tracking website TankerTrackers.com reported that, for the first time since 2018, a majority of Iran-flagged oil tankers had turned on their AIS transponders, openly broadcasting their locations . Two independent maritime data providers confirmed the sudden transparency. Whether deliberate or otherwise, it marked a significant but temporary shift in Tehran’s long-standing strategy of concealment from international tracking, providing purchasers with some degree of plausible deniability and making interdiction more difficult.

However, within days, most of those tankers went dark again, ceasing public transmissions . TankerTrackers.com later confirmed to BBC Verify that only a small fraction of Iran’s fleet continues to broadcast its position — “a sharp decline from just a few days earlier.” The reason for this sudden shift — both the initial openness and the reversion to secrecy — remains unclear.

Analysts and Iranian media have offered several interpretations . The reformist newspaper Etemad suggested the move may have been a “positive signal” to international regulatory bodies or a test of Iran’s readiness to re-enter global oil markets under potential partial sanctions relief. The moderate daily Ettela’at described it as a “strange and suspicious” development, quoting energy expert Mahmoud Khaghani, a former oil ministry official, who speculated it could indicate either internal sabotage or an attempt by factions within Iran’s power structure to provoke tensions with the United States.

Another economic outlet, Jahan-e San’at, argued that Tehran might have been sending a message to new buyers, suggesting that greater transparency could build trust among future customers, while continued secrecy heightens political and commercial risk . Some Iranian observers even hinted at a possible covert understanding between Tehran and Western states, suggesting that limited sanctions relief may have been quietly negotiated — though no evidence supports this claim.

Alternatively, it is possible that the tracking systems were turned on by a hack from an external power, thus sending a warning to Tehran and foreshadowing stronger sanctions and interdiction efforts amid the restored maximum pressure campaign.

Social media users in Iran and abroad reacted intensely . Some claimed that China’s open defiance of U.S. sanctions gave Iran confidence to reveal its oil shipments, while others argued that Tehran may have received guarantees from Beijing and was testing U.S. interdiction efforts in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

At the same time, U.S. and European intelligence reports indicate that Iran’s cooperation with Russia continues to expand beyond trade . Western media, including Reuters and Bloomberg , have reported on the possible transfer of Russian military aircraft and heavy equipment to Iran, though both Moscow and Tehran have refrained from confirming or denying the reports.

According to Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei, Tehran remains in “constant consultation” with Moscow and Beijing and is confident that “relations with these two partners will remain unaffected .” He noted that Russia and China’s open legal opposition to the snapback demonstrates the continuity of cooperation despite Western pressure.

The U.S. sanctions also come at a delicate geopolitical moment, coinciding with the Israel–Hamas ceasefire in Gaza and broader Western efforts to contain regional escalation while reasserting economic pressure on Tehran . In sum, China and Russia’s firm rejection of the snapback, coupled with Iran’s persistent oil exports, signals a new phase of defiance. Yet, the brief reappearance of Iranian tankers, followed by an abrupt blackout, underscores the fragility and complexity of Tehran’s strategy — one that mixes symbolic gestures, diplomatic maneuvering, and covert trade to survive under renewed global scrutiny.

Cultural Policing and Religious Control in Iran: From “Sacred Dolls” to the Hijab Enforcement Campaign [[link removed]]
Two parallel developments in Iran — the judicial crackdown on so-called “fantasy dolls” named Morteza and Marziyeh and the launch of a vast new hijab enforcement initiative deploying tens of thousands of morality enforcers — have reignited public debate about the growing convergence of religion, law, and surveillance in Iranian society . Together, these incidents reflect a deepening state strategy to police culture and behavior under the banner of defending Islamic values, while critics warn that such measures are eroding personal freedoms and widening the gap between the government and the public.

The Tehran Prosecutor’s Office recently announced that it had ordered judicial investigators to identify and prosecute those responsible for producing and distributing Morteza and Marziyeh — soft anti-stress toys shaped like animals such as pigs and gorillas . Hardline media and religious activists condemned the toys for allegedly “insulting sanctities”, arguing that naming them after revered figures — Morteza being one of Imam Ali’s honorifics and Marziyeh associated with Fatemeh Zahra, the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter — amounted to mocking religious symbols.

Opponents claimed that the toys’ use as items meant to be squeezed or struck symbolically disrespected holy names . The resulting campaign led to the judiciary’s intervention, despite growing criticism from psychologists and cultural commentators who viewed the move as an example of moral overreach and censorship. They noted that such “fidget toys” are common globally and serve therapeutic purposes, not blasphemous ones. Legal experts including Ali Najafi Tavana argued that no criminal intent can be established without proven intention to offend, emphasizing that the judiciary’s reaction blurred the line between law and personal piety.

What began as a minor product controversy has since become a symbolic battle over cultural control, echoing past crackdowns on Western-branded dolls like Barbie , which officials once labeled a threat to Iran’s religious identity . This time, however, the products in question were made and sold legally within Iran, raising deeper concerns about how far authorities will extend religious scrutiny into everyday life.

At the same time, the government has launched a far-reaching new campaign to enforce the compulsory hijab law, combining physical monitoring with digital and community surveillance . On October 17, 2025 (25 Mehr 1404), Rouhollah Momen-Nasab, secretary of the Tehran Headquarters for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, announced the creation of an “Hijab and Modesty Situation Room” — a coordination body linking cultural, judicial, and security institutions. Momen-Nasab revealed that over 80,000 “morality enforcers” and 4,575 judicial instructors are being mobilized to carry out what he described as a “great transformation” against “secularism and social apathy.”

The new structure integrates citizen surveillance networks through what authorities call the “Public Observers Command,” encouraging ordinary citizens to report “improper” dress or behavior in public, educational, and even digital spaces . Momen-Nasab stated that the Situation Room would analyze cultural trends, monitor online content, and coordinate with the judiciary and cyber police (FATA) to investigate and prosecute “norm-breaking” acts, including social media posts deemed contrary to public morality.

Despite these new measures, large segments of Iranian women continue to openly defy the compulsory hijab law, appearing unveiled in public spaces, shops, and universities . Social media platforms are filled with images of women walking freely without headscarves, signaling a widespread act of civil disobedience. Even some politicians aligned with the establishment — including Mohammadreza Bahonar, a veteran conservative figure and former deputy speaker of parliament — have publicly stated that the hijab should not be enforced through coercion. In this atmosphere of resistance and fatigue, it appears unlikely that the new hijab enforcement plan will have a significant impact or compel women to comply. This is especially true since Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has reportedly confirmed that the hijab law is not legally enforceable under current regulations, further complicating the government’s effort to implement it through administrative or moral channels.

Critics inside and outside Iran describe these developments as part of a broader campaign of “Talibanization” of public life — an effort to formalize citizen-on-citizen surveillance while using religion as a legal tool for control . They warn that deputizing tens of thousands of informants risks creating a climate of fear, mutual suspicion, and social fragmentation, undermining trust within communities and further isolating women who resist compulsory dress codes.

Both the “sacred dolls” investigation and the new hijab enforcement policy reveal how the Iranian state continues to use religion not only as a moral guide but as a governing instrument . In this framework, cultural expression, psychological tools, and even consumer products are subject to scrutiny through the lens of ideological purity.

For many Iranians — especially younger generations shaped by the Woman, Life, Freedom protests in 2022 — such measures reinforce the perception of a government out of step with societal realities . Public frustration is evident online, where users mock the crackdown as misplaced priorities amid economic hardship and social unrest.

Ultimately, these two episodes expose a deeper truth: Iran’s ruling establishment is doubling down on religious enforcement as a means of political control, even at the cost of alienating much of its population . Whether targeting toys or clothing, the state’s message remains the same — the boundaries of faith, law, and personal life will continue to be defined from above, not negotiated from below.

Tamadon Novin Eslami: Ambitions, Critiques, and Political Roots [[link removed]]
Tamadon Novin Eslami is one of the newest political formations to emerge within Iran’s conservative spectrum, founded and led by Yaser Jebraili, a political strategist and former government official with experience in policymaking and economic planning . The party presents itself as a vehicle for reviving Islamic governance through what it calls a “New Islamic Civilization”—a vision combining religious values with modern administrative and developmental goals. Yet, despite its confident debut and civilizational rhetoric, many observers question whether it represents genuine innovation or a rebranding of Iran’s existing conservative establishment.

The party officially launched during its first general assembly on October 9, 2025 in Tehran, an event attended by prominent conservative figures including Hojjatoleslam Alireza Panahian, Seyed Yaser Jebraili, and Hossein Samsami, a former economic official and academic associated with Iran’s conservative economic circles. The gathering was presented as the formal beginning of the party’s political, cultural, and social activities. During the congress, members of the Central Council were elected for a two-year term, after which the council was tasked with selecting the party’s chairman and secretary-general. The assembly also announced the creation of national policy commissions and provincial offices, outlining three core priorities: discourse-building (goftaman-sazi), cadre training (kadrsazi), and policy planning (barname-rizi).

In his speech, Jebraili described the party’s purpose as an effort to align Iran’s politics with “servitude to God” and to promote a moral, disciplined governance model that remains loyal to revolutionary ideals while improving bureaucratic performance . He argued that the current management system suffers from inefficiency, speculative economics, and a detachment from Islamic principles. His statements called for greater state control over financial markets, a focus on value-added production, and an end to rent-seeking and speculative behavior in currency exchange and import sectors. These themes reflect Jebraili’s long-standing criticisms of what he calls “neoliberal influence” in Iran’s economy, as well as his emphasis on social justice and transparency.

While Tamadon Novin Eslami positions itself as a movement of reform within the system, it has faced widespread skepticism . Critics argue that the party’s rhetoric remains abstract, dominated by slogans about “civilizational progress” without providing measurable or enforceable policy mechanisms. Political analysts also highlight that the party has avoided clear stances on key domestic issues such as civil rights, the judiciary’s authority, media independence, and political participation, suggesting that its priorities remain confined within the conservative mainstream. Others note that the presence of figures like Panahian and Samsami—both well-known for their ideological and institutional ties—signals that the new party’s foundation is more an extension of existing networks than a break from them.

Yaser Jebraili’s own background has further fueled questions about the party’s independence . Before founding Tamadon Novin Eslami, he was associated with President Ebrahim Raisi’s administration, reportedly serving as an advisor in economic planning and contributing to the drafting of parts of Raisi’s economic platform. Although he did not hold a cabinet position, his proximity to Raisi’s policymaking team positioned him within the government’s strategic planning structure. This experience has been seen by some as evidence of his competence, but by others as proof that he is part of the same establishment he now claims to reform.

Moreover, Jebraili is closely aligned ideologically with Saeed Jalili, the former nuclear negotiator and secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Jalili’s political school of thought—often described as “principlist hardline”—emphasizes resistance to Western influence, expansion of ties with Russia and China, and strict adherence to revolutionary ideology. Many commentators consider Jebraili a disciple or intellectual ally of Jalili, noting the overlap in their discourse about Islamic civilization and sovereignty. However, there is no formal confirmation of organizational ties between the two, and Jebraili has presented his movement as distinct and independent in structure, though ideologically close in outlook.

Beyond ideology, Tamadon Novin Eslami faces structural obstacles that challenge all new political movements in Iran . The political environment is dominated by powerful institutions such as the Guardian Council and entrenched factions that control access to elections and funding. The party also lacks a proven grassroots network or broad social base, relying primarily on elite connections and university-linked supporters. Some media outlets have noted that its inaugural congress featured highly choreographed visuals and branding, reminiscent of electoral campaigns rather than grassroots political activism, reinforcing perceptions of a top-down movement rather than a popular initiative.

Critics within conservative circles have also voiced caution, arguing that the party risks fragmenting the right-wing bloc by competing for influence among already overlapping constituencies . Reformist commentators, meanwhile, have dismissed Tamadon Novin Eslami as a cosmetic renovation of the same ideological framework, pointing out that despite its academic language, it offers no tangible mechanism for political pluralism or institutional accountability.

In essence, Tamadon Novin Eslami embodies the duality of Iran’s political evolution—seeking to renew revolutionary ideology while remaining firmly within its boundaries . Yaser Jebraili’s insider experience gives the party technical and bureaucratic insight but undermines its claim to be a fresh alternative. The inclusion of Panahian and Samsami strengthens its conservative credentials but also tethers it to Iran’s existing centers of power. Whether the party can transform its civilizational vision into concrete governance or merely remain a symbolic extension of the conservative establishment remains an open question. Ultimately, the party’s success or failure will depend on its ability to demonstrate policy realism, independence from entrenched factions, and responsiveness to broader social demands—qualities that have so far eluded many political newcomers in Iran’s tightly controlled system.

Zarif and Lavrov: A Clash of Eras in Iran’s Foreign Policy [[link removed]]
The public confrontation between Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister, and Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s top diplomat, has reopened one of the most contentious chapters in Iran’s modern foreign policy . Their dispute over who created the “snapback” mechanism in the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) has evolved beyond a technical argument—it has become a symbolic battle over history, loyalty, and Iran’s place in a transformed world order.

On October 14, Lavrov told reporters at the Arab–Russian Cooperation Forum that the JCPOA’s snapback clause—allowing any signatory to unilaterally restore UN sanctions on Iran—was “to a large extent Zarif’s own creation .” He called it a “legal trap” embedded in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and claimed it had been agreed directly between Zarif and then–U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, while other parties, including Russia, “simply observed.” “Frankly, we were surprised,” Lavrov said. “But if our Iranian partner accepted such a legal formula, we had no reason to object.” He maintained that Russia had never abandoned its support for the JCPOA, even as Western states—Britain, France, Germany, and the U.S.—moved this year to reactivate sanctions through the same mechanism.

Zarif responded forcefully, accusing Lavrov of distorting history and evading responsibility . According to him, the snapback provision actually replaced an even worse proposal originally advanced by Russia and France, which would have suspended UN sanctions only in renewable six-month intervals—subject to reversal at any time. Zarif recalled confronting Kerry about that idea: “He said, ‘Let’s suspend the resolutions every six months.’ I told him this insults my intelligence. Kerry replied, ‘This proposal came from your friend Lavrov.’” For Zarif, the episode encapsulates Moscow’s duplicity—posing as Iran’s ally while protecting its own interests. He now argues that Russia, not Iran, engineered the most restrictive aspects of the JCPOA and is trying to rewrite the story a decade later.

When the JCPOA was signed under U.S. President Barack Obama, the global balance of power was radically different . At that time, Russia and China maintained functional relations with Washington and shared an interest in limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Both cooperated with the U.S. and European powers, forming a unified diplomatic front that pressured Tehran into signing the 2015 accord. In practice, this alignment isolated Iran, as even non-Western powers participated in the JCPOA framework. A decade later, the stage has completely shifted. Russia is locked in war with the West over Ukraine, and China is engaged in a strategic rivalry with the United States. Sanctions on many of the major non-Western powers have increasingly driven Iran, China and Russia together, though key divides and distrust remain. Today, both Moscow and Beijing refuse to recognize the snapback sanctions, take steps to defend Iran at the UN Security Council, and have expanded military and technical cooperation. The same powers that once helped Washington contain Iran are now shielding it—a reversal that underscores the magnitude of the global shift since 2015.

Once celebrated as the architect of the JCPOA that delivered significant sanctions relief for the nation, Zarif has come under increasing attack as the fortunes of the JCPOA have declined, now underscored by the snapback of UN resolutions . While he played a critical role in the Pezeshkian campaign and early days of the current administration, his resignation leaves him without formal influence in the system. Under relentless domestic attacks, Zarif’s narrative has become one of self-defense. He insists that he acted in Iran’s best interest, facing both internal sabotage and external manipulation. His recent interviews portray a man fighting not for political return, but for his historical reputation—arguing that Iran’s current difficulties stem not from his diplomacy, but from its abandonment. “Many of the attacks against me and the JCPOA were orchestrated,” Zarif told An-Nahar. “Direct and multilateral negotiations with the U.S. are the only solution, and time is not necessarily in our favor.”

Ironically, as Zarif defends himself from Lavrov’s criticism, many Iranian hardliners echo the Russian position . They view the JCPOA as a Western trap and blame Zarif for over-trusting the United States. For them, Lavrov’s remarks validate their long-held belief that the nuclear agreement was flawed from the beginning. This convergence—between Russian diplomats and Iran’s conservative elite—highlights a new ideological realignment. Iran’s foreign policy has now moved decisively toward the Eurasian axis, prioritizing strategic alignment with Russia and China over compromise with the West. In this new paradigm, Zarif’s vision of balanced diplomacy is often treated as anachronistic, a relic of an era when engagement with the U.S. still seemed possible of delivering results.

The dispute between Zarif and Lavrov encapsulates the end of an era in Iranian diplomacy . It is not merely a personal feud—it symbolizes Iran’s transition from multilateral engagement to more limited diplomatic ambitions. Zarif represents the past: negotiation, compromise, and engagement. Lavrov represents the present: confrontation, realignment, and power politics. While Russia and China now defend Iran at the UN and supply it with some level of military equipment, Tehran’s foreign policy has become increasingly dependent on their goodwill. The man once accused of trusting the West too much now watches as his country trusts Moscow and Beijing completely.

Remembering Nasser Taghvai: The Conscience of Iranian Cinema [[link removed]]
Nasser Taghvai, one of Iran’s most respected filmmakers and a voice of conscience for generations of artists, passed away on October 14, 2025, at the age of 84 . Born in 1941 in the southern city of Abadan, Taghvai grew up among the sounds of oil refineries, the humidity of the Persian Gulf, and the everyday struggles of working people—an environment that would later shape the emotional and social depth of his films. He was a storyteller who found beauty in truth and humanity in simplicity, a director whose career reflected both the triumph and tragedy of Iranian cinema.

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Taghvai never studied cinema formally . He learned by watching, reading, and listening—immersing himself in world literature and film, but remaining deeply rooted in the culture of southern Iran. His early documentaries captured life as it was lived by ordinary people—their resilience, humor, and dignity. His first feature film, Tranquility in the Presence of Others (1972), was a bold examination of social repression and human fragility. It was quickly banned, a sign of the challenges that would follow him throughout his career. Yet it also established him as a filmmaker unafraid to confront uncomfortable truths.

Taghvai’s most celebrated film, Captain Khorshid (1987), based on Ernest Hemingway’s To Have and Have Not , transposed a Western classic to the Persian Gulf, transforming it into a story of moral struggle, loyalty, and resistance . The film received international acclaim and won an award at the Locarno International Film Festival, confirming Taghvai’s reputation as a master of adaptation and atmosphere. In his hands, cinematic realism became poetic; landscapes turned into moral spaces, and silence spoke louder than dialogue. His works portrayed fishermen, villagers, teachers, and dreamers—people often ignored by power but illuminated by art.

Taghvai’s influence was not limited to cinema . In the 1970s, he directed the television series My Uncle Napoleon (Dāyī Jān Nāpoléon), adapted from Iraj Pezeshkzad’s novel. The series became an enduring cultural phenomenon, its characters and humor still alive in Iranian collective memory half a century later. Through it, Taghvai captured the absurdities and tenderness of Iranian society with unmatched grace and irony. Even after the revolution, when political and cultural restrictions tightened, his commitment to honest storytelling never waned. His 2002 film Unruled Paper (Kāghaz-e Bi Khat), exploring the psychological landscape of modern family life, earned him the Hafez Award for Best Director and reaffirmed his creative vitality.

Yet behind his achievements lay decades of struggle . Taghvai often clashed with state censors and bureaucrats who tried to limit his artistic freedom. Many of his planned projects were blocked or left unfinished. In later interviews, he spoke openly of the “terrible censorship” that suffocated Iranian cinema and declared that he would not make films under such constraints. His silence in the last years of his life was not a sign of defeat but a quiet act of defiance. He chose dignity over compromise, remaining faithful to the principle that art must serve truth, not power.

Nasser Taghvai’s legacy stands as a testament to artistic integrity, courage, and devotion to truth . His films are few, but each bears the mark of moral clarity and human depth. He taught future generations that cinema is not only an art but a responsibility—a way to record the conscience of a nation and give voice to those often unheard. His influence continues through the countless filmmakers, writers, and viewers who found in his work a reflection of themselves and their country.

In a message following his passing, his wife, the actress Marzieh Vafamehr, wrote: “Nasser Taghvai, an artist who chose the difficulty of living freely, has earned his liberation .” Her words reflect the essence of a man who lived by his convictions. Taghvai was a filmmaker who refused to surrender to fear or convenience, a storyteller who believed that truth itself was a form of resistance. His life reminds us that art without freedom is hollow, and freedom without truth is meaningless.

From the perspective of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), Nasser Taghvai represented the very spirit of Iran’s cultural resilience—the belief that art can transcend oppression and connect a nation to its better self . His voice reminded Iranians everywhere that integrity and creativity are inseparable, and that beauty and truth must walk hand in hand. NIAC honors his lifelong dedication to storytelling, his compassion for ordinary people, and his unwavering moral courage. His legacy will continue to inspire artists and advocates who strive for a freer, more humane Iran—one where truth, dignity, and art can flourish side by side.unsubscribe: [link removed]
Support NIAC's important work by making a contribution today.
Donate → [[link removed]]
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tfoot>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #fff; text-align: center; padding: 60px 30px 45px;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="35%">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="text-align: center; padding: 0 8px;"><a href="[link removed]" style="mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1%; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="[link removed]" style="line-height: 1%; margin: 0px; vertical-align: middle; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; width: 36px; height: 36px;" /> </a></td>
<td style="text-align: center; padding: 0 8px;"><a href="[link removed]" style="mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1%; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="[link removed]" style="line-height: 1%; margin: 0px; vertical-align: middle; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; width: 36px; height: 36px;" /> </a></td>
<td style="text-align: center; padding: 0 8px;"><a href="[link removed]" style="mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1%; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="[link removed]" style="line-height: 1%; margin: 0px; vertical-align: middle; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; width: 36px; height: 36px;" /> </a></td>
<td style="text-align: center; padding: 0 8px;"><a href="[link removed]" style="mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1%; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="[link removed]" style="line-height: 1%; margin: 0px; vertical-align: middle; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; width: 36px; height: 36px;" /> </a></td>
<td style="text-align: center; padding: 0 8px;"><a href="[link removed]" style="mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1%; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="[link removed]" style="line-height: 1%; margin: 0px; vertical-align: middle; border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; width: 36px; height: 36px;" /> </a></td>
<td width="35%">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #fff; border-top: 1px solid #000; color: #000; padding: 30px 30px 10px; text-align: center;">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #fff; color: #000; padding: 0 30px;">
<p><span style="display: block; font-family: Arial, sans-serif !important; font-size: 18px; font-weight: 700; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1.2;">Receive this email from a friend? <a href="[link removed]" style="color: #002b49;">See previous issues and/or sign up here</a>.</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #fff; color: #000; padding: 0 30px 20px;"><span style="display: block; font-family: Arial, sans-serif !important; font-size: 14px; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; line-height: 1.7;">This email was sent to&nbsp;[email protected] because you signed up to receive the latest Iran Unfiltered newsletter in your inbox. If you don't want to receive this newsletter in the future, we'd hate to see you go but you can <a href="[link removed]" style="color: #002b49;">manage your subscription and unsubscribe here</a>. Iran Unfiltered is a weekly digest tracking Iranian politics &amp; society from the National Iranian American Council, a 501(c)3 grassroots organization.&nbsp;</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: #fff; padding: 0 30px 30px;"><span style="font-size:14px"><span style="display:block"><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif !important"><span style="line-height:1.2">© 2020 National Iranian American Council | PO Box 65439 | Washington, DC 20035</span></span></span></span></td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>