From labeling protesters as “terrorists” to inflating security narratives, Iranian officials reveal fear of renewed uprisings amid widespread unrest
The latest wave of nationwide protests in Iran has triggered a wave of hostile, defensive, and increasingly alarmist reactions from senior regime officials. Rather than addressing the root causes of public anger, authorities have once again resorted to labeling protesters, minimizing the scale of demonstrations, and reframing popular unrest as “terrorism” or “armed chaos” in an effort to justify repression and deflect responsibility for state violence.
Officials across the political and security establishment have echoed a coordinated narrative portraying the protests as an externally driven and organized conspiracy. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the regime’s parliament claimed that the protests were centrally planned and simultaneously launched across cities, framing them as a form of “terrorist warfare.” He went so far as to compare the events to a military conflict, praising the role of security forces, the Basij, and the Revolutionary Guards for suppressing demonstrations, while ignoring reports of excessive force and civilian casualties.
Similar rhetoric was advanced by Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the parliament’s National Security Commission, who attempted to fragment the protests into artificial “levels.” While acknowledging the existence of economic and political grievances, he claimed the situation escalated into a fourth phase involving armed action and terrorism. According to his account, the regime exercised restraint until this alleged stage, after which it deemed repression a necessity. He further asserted that the unrest resulted in more than 3,000 deaths, a figure presented without transparency and widely viewed as part of an effort to conflate victims with perpetrators and legitimize mass crackdowns.
Other members of the same commission reinforced this narrative, arguing that the protests evolved into an unprecedented “sedition” involving dozens of cities. They emphasized the continuous deployment of security forces and praised their endurance under what they described as extreme conditions, once again shifting focus away from the protesters’ demands and toward glorifying the apparatus of repression.
The commander of the regime’s police forces Ahmad-Reza Radan also weighed in, characterizing the protests as a dangerous and complex threat to the system and declaring unwavering loyalty to preserving the ruling order at any cost. Such statements reflect not confidence, but deep anxiety within the security establishment over the persistence and geographical spread of dissent.
Provincial authorities and regime-affiliated media have simultaneously published figures on property damage, particularly emphasizing attacks on banks, government buildings, and public infrastructure. In Kermanshah province, Manouchehr Habibi, the governor claimed losses amounting to approximately 1,200 billion tomans, including the destruction of multiple bank branches. Regime-linked outlets reported similar damage in Rasht, citing burned fire trucks, damaged government offices, and targeted financial institutions.
This heavy focus on material damage serves a clear political purpose: diverting attention from the causes of the protests—systemic corruption, economic collapse, repression, and lack of basic freedoms—and reframing a popular uprising as mere vandalism and insecurity. By amplifying claims of violence and terrorism, the regime seeks to normalize repression, justify future crackdowns, and conceal the depth of popular resistance.
Taken together, the coordinated and aggressive tone of these statements underscores a fundamental reality: the Iranian regime remains deeply fearful of renewed nationwide uprisings. Despite efforts to control the narrative, the scale of official reactions betrays an awareness that public anger has not been extinguished—and that the foundations of the system remain profoundly unstable.
