In recent years, the Iranian regime has escalated its repressive policies against civil liberties through a calculated and regionally phased approach. Rather than imposing these measures uniformly, the regime first tests them in specific provinces or cities and, if effective, gradually expands their application to neighboring areas.
This method has become especially pronounced in matters related to women’s rights, personal freedoms, and cultural restrictions, signaling a broader strategy of social engineering and authoritarian consolidation.
One notable example is the partial implementation of the controversial Chastity and Hijab bill in the city of Isfahan. Despite official claims that the bill’s rollout had been halted, its enforcement in Isfahan revealed the regime’s preference for covert, decentralized policy experimentation.
These actions not only bypass public scrutiny but also highlight the regime’s intent to tighten control over private and public life through indirect and unannounced means.
Such efforts are part of a long-term agenda to institutionalize repression—an agenda that dates back to the so-called “Cultural Revolution” launched decades ago.
Today, this ideological mission continues under the guise of social and religious order, but with enhanced tools of enforcement, including judicial rulings, security forces, and state-aligned militia networks.
A recent wave of restrictive policies illustrates this approach. Local prosecutors in various cities—including Andimeshk, Baharestan, Lavasanat, Mallard, Robat Karim, Kermanshah, Borujerd, Tabriz, Khorramabad, Gorgan, Kerman, Urmia, Isfahan, Hamedan, and Qazvin—have imposed bans on dog walking in public.
These actions, justified by vague appeals to “public rights,” “social order,” and “public health,” have included threats to confiscate vehicles, seal related businesses, and pursue legal action against violators.
However, the legal basis for such restrictions remains murky. There is no nationwide legislation underpinning these measures, and citizens are left with little recourse to challenge them.
Many observers see this tactic as a form of ambiguous governance—creating confusion, suppressing dissent, and diverting attention from the country’s deeper political and economic crises.
This region-by-region strategy of repression is not limited to the cultural and social realms. It has been replicated in the economic domain as well.
For instance, instead of increasing bread prices nationwide—an act that could trigger mass protests—the regime has raised prices incrementally and regionally. This tactic aims to minimize resistance by localizing the fallout and delaying national unrest.
Similarly, changes in gasoline rationing have been implemented experimentally in select provinces. By avoiding official announcements and framing decisions as “trials,” the regime tests public tolerance and mobilization capacity, while limiting the geographic scope of potential backlash.
Through this fragmented enforcement model, the government treats different parts of the country as testing grounds—using regional divisions to fragment public opinion and shield itself from unified opposition.
This has deeply undermined Iran’s legal norms and social cohesion, pushing citizens further into a state of uncertainty and disempowerment.
Nowhere is this model more apparent than in Mashhad, the capital of Khorasan Razavi province and a longstanding stronghold of conservative power.
Backed by the Office of the Supreme Leader, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the judiciary, authorities in Mashhad have routinely bypassed national laws and imposed extrajudicial restrictions.
Concerts approved by the Ministry of Culture have been canceled, women have been barred from stadiums, and tourism initiatives have been obstructed—all in the name of preserving Islamic values.
Religious figures, particularly Friday prayer leaders appointed by the Supreme Leader, play a central role in driving these efforts.
In Isfahan, sermons frequently target women, youth, and contemporary lifestyles, promoting fear and conformity. In December 2022, a temporary Friday prayer imam in Isfahan went as far as demanding that women’s clothing not only adhere to Islamic standards but also be dark in color.
Another figure, Abolhassan Mahdavi, a vocal supporter of the so-called Guidance Patrol, called for the involvement of “fire at will” vigilante groups to enforce hijab rules.
Such rhetoric has tangible consequences. In 2014, a series of acid attacks in Isfahan targeted women, sparking outrage. At the time, several media outlets warned that incendiary statements by clerics had created a climate ripe for such violence.
Yet, rather than condemning the attacks outright, official institutions—including the Supreme Leader’s Office—reiterated broad and vague slogans about “fighting social corruption,” providing implicit justification for the repression of civil liberties.
The pattern has persisted. In 2015, Yousef Tabatabai Nejad, the Friday prayer leader of Isfahan and a member of the regime’s Assembly of Experts, called for banning women from working alongside men—an idea widely criticized as an attempt to normalize a Taliban-like governance model in Iran.
Other tools of repression, such as sending threatening SMS messages, impounding vehicles, installing facial recognition cameras, and intensifying patrols—especially during Nowruz holidays—have also been deployed without any formal legislative backing.
These measures are often implemented with the support of provincial religious leaders and coordination between law enforcement and plainclothes forces.
The overarching strategy is clear: by localizing repressive measures and avoiding nationwide rollouts, the Iranian regime seeks to neutralize opposition in smaller units before scaling up its policies.
This incremental, regionalized approach reduces the risk of widespread unrest and provides a testing ground for repressive governance models—ensuring that when policies are eventually applied nationwide, the regime is prepared to confront and contain dissent.
What we are witnessing is not simply ad hoc repression, but a deliberate and methodical strategy—one that uses the country’s geography as a buffer and its legal ambiguities as a weapon to deepen authoritarian control over every aspect of Iranian life.
