The Iranian regime's grip on internet access is facing mounting scrutiny as political analysts and former officials openly criticize the effectiveness and legality of filtering measures. Mohsen Borhani voiced his concerns on the X social media platform, stating, "The current filtering is an illegal action and has no legal basis. Therefore, lifting it does not require permission from any authority." He emphasized the importance of not legitimizing past illegal actions through continued compliance.
This discourse on internet freedom has intensified as Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, during his campaign, pledged to lift internet restrictions. Observers see this as pivotal for rebuilding public trust not only in Pezeshkian's administration but also across the political spectrum. On Saturday, prominent principlist analyst Mohammad Mohajeri echoed this sentiment, urging the president not to yield to pressures from the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, which monitors internet activities and enforces filtering.
The Minister of Communications, Sattar Heshemi, provided some insight last Thursday, indicating potential gradual lifting of restrictions. He acknowledged the complexity of the current cyberspace environment, where even council members agree on the prevailing unsatisfactory state, yet implementing changes involves multifaceted challenges.
Further complicity arises from the knowledge of high-ranking officials using banned platforms. A former head of the Supreme Cyberspace Council, Abolhassan Firouzabadi, revealed unsettling truths about the government's digital censorship strategies. He stated during an interview on December 20, 2024, "It’s now evident to all, filtering has been ineffective,” referring to the widespread use of prohibited platforms like Instagram and Telegram among many Iranians.
Firouzabadi's remarks underscored the regime's failures and the hypocrisy evident among its ranks. For example, state-controlled applications like Eitaa have not proven effective, failing to meet the demands of citizens who have turned to VPNs instead. According to former MP Rasoul Rashidi-Kouchi, approximately 85% of Iranians currently utilize VPN services to navigate around internet censorship.
These actions reflect not only the public's frustration with the regime's restrictive policies, but they also showcase the hypocrisy of officials and their reliance on platforms they deem threatening to ordinary citizens. Firouzabadi called attention to this contradiction, admitting, "Filtering is no longer justified in any sense,” aligning with public opinions on the ineffectiveness of internet censorship.
Statistical comparisons paint a stark picture of Iran's internet struggles. Global connectivity has progressed rapidly elsewhere, but Iran languishes behind. Data from Speedtest revealed Iran ranks poorly on mobile internet speeds, even falling behind its regional competitors like the UAE and Qatar. These figures not only highlight technological deficiencies but also speak to the regime's misplaced priorities; it has opted for control rather than connectivity.
Critics of Iran's regulatory policies underline the sheer lack of legal framework underpinning the filtering operations. They've emerged as instruments for specific interests rather than upholding legitimate laws, leading to questions of accountability. Firouzabadi's assertion indicates significant fractures within the regime’s narrative of protecting cultural integrity through restrictions.
The dissonance does not end there; the regime's continuous failure to deliver functional domestic alternatives compounds citizen dissatisfaction. Its strategy of promoting state-controlled platforms over globally accepted ones has proven ineffective, enduring as the public rejects these alternatives repeatedly. This persistent push against the tides of state narrative solidifies the increasing discontent arising from the Iranian populace.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's consistent framing of the internet as a security hazard has only intensified public outrage. His rhetoric reflects deep-seated fears about losing hegemony over public discourse. This unease is indicative of the regime's failure to accommodate the aspirations of its citizens, instead opting to enforce censorship under defunct premises of stability and cultural sanctity.
The plight of citizens who continue seeking alternatives, whether through VPNs or by pushing back through protests, reveals their persistent commitment to securing their rights. Despite the regime's repressive stance, the call for change grows ever louder—a clear signal highlighting the unsustainability of filtering as its efficacy dwindles.
With these mounting pressures, the future of internet access and freedom within Iran is uncertain. Political figures like Pezeshkian must navigate the delicate balance of public sentiment and state control if they hope to reconstruct trust with citizens. The disconnect between the regime's actions and the desires of its people emphasizes the monumental challenges the Iranian government faces without its longstanding reliance on internet censorship—a legacy increasingly at odds with the world, not to mention the demands of its own populace.
