Iranian hardliners turn on Ghalibaf and judiciary after lawmaker's sentencing

Flight-monitoring data from Flightradar24 indicate that US aviation sanctions have reduced Iran’s international flights by half in one week. Almost all of Iran’s international flights over the past month have been operated by Iranian airlines, as foreign carriers have largely stopped flying to the country.

The latest restrictions reach beyond Iranian airlines themselves. Airports, fuel suppliers, ground handlers, ticket sellers and other companies providing services to sanctioned carriers can risk US penalties, giving businesses in third countries an incentive to stop handling Iranian flights.

Iranian-operated flights to the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Georgia and Azerbaijan have been suspended or sharply restricted, while Iranian carriers remain barred from Iraqi airports despite a limited resumption of services by Iraq’s national airline. Flights to China and Russia continue, while services to several other destinations, including Turkey and Afghanistan, have remained available.

For passengers trying to reach countries no longer served directly, that increasingly means flying through cities such as Istanbul, Islamabad, Kabul, Beijing, Dushanbe, Yerevan or Moscow before continuing to their destinations.

The detours can add hours or even days to journeys and substantially increase costs.

Turkey has become one of the most important remaining gateways. Iran Air flights between Tehran and Istanbul were still operating Monday, according to flight-tracking data, although Mahan Air has already suspended its Turkey services and Turkish Airlines has no Iran flights scheduled before March 2027.

Turkey Today reported Monday, citing two sources, that the remaining Iranian flights to Turkey were expected to be suspended in early October. No formal announcement of a complete suspension has yet been made.

Longer routes, higher costs

Mahan, a 42-year-old Iranian who has lived and worked in the United Arab Emirates for years and regularly travels to Tehran to visit her elderly mother, said her latest return journey to Dubai showed how quickly the restrictions were changing ordinary travel.

With direct options unavailable, she flew from Iran to Armenia on Sunday, spent the night at a hotel in Yerevan and continued to Dubai the following day.

Including the hotel and transportation in Armenia, she said the journey cost almost three times what she previously paid to travel between Iran and the UAE.

The trip was also more stressful, she said, because the hotel arranged for her was a considerable distance from the airport.

Other passengers she encountered had taken an even more difficult route. They told her they had traveled overland from Iran to the Armenian border and then continued roughly 400 kilometers by bus to Yerevan.

They described carrying luggage through crowded border areas and struggling to find transportation for the long journey from the crossing to the Armenian capital.

Najaf becomes test case

Iraq has emerged as one of the clearest examples of the complications created by Washington’s aviation pressure because of the volume of religious and family travel between the two countries.

Baghdad airport stopped accepting flights operated by Iranian airlines on September 22. Iranian aviation authorities initially sought to redirect some Baghdad-bound services to Najaf, one of Shiite Islam’s most important pilgrimage centers.

Najaf airport then suspended all flights to and from Iran on September 25, cutting off the alternative route and affecting large numbers of Iranian pilgrims traveling to Najaf and nearby Karbala.

The Iraqi government subsequently opened direct talks with Washington for exemptions from US Treasury measures. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s office said it was seeking exemptions allowing travel for medical treatment, education, religious visits and other civilian purposes.

Reuters reported Monday that the Trump administration was preparing a one-month waiver allowing Iraqi Airways to carry Shia pilgrims between Najaf and Iran, with a more permanent exemption potentially following. The proposed waiver applies specifically to the Iraqi national carrier.

Iraq’s state news agency later reported that Iraqi Airways had resumed flights between Najaf and Iranian airports.

Iran, however, disputed reports that Iran-Najaf flights had broadly resumed. Civil Aviation Organization spokesman Majid Akhavan said Tehran had received no official communication authorizing a resumption and said Iranian airlines remained unable to restart the route.

The two accounts refer to different operators: the Iraqi announcement concerned Iraqi Airways, while the Iranian statement addressed the ability of Iranian carriers to return to Najaf. Iraqi media also reported Monday that the ban on Iranian airlines remained in force even as Iraqi Airways resumed flights to Iranian airports.

The distinction gives Baghdad a way to restore at least some pilgrimage traffic without immediately reopening its airports to sanctioned Iranian carriers.

The disruption had already created political pressure in Iraq. Demonstrations were held in Baghdad and Najaf against the suspension, while Iranian officials warned that restrictions on air links could affect the broader relationship between the two neighbors.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of Iran’s parliamentary National Security Committee, pointed to Iraq’s reliance on Iranian electricity and gas and warned that policies obstructing bilateral ties could have consequences in other areas.

Iranian website Rouydad24 described the flight dispute as a test of relations between Tehran and Baghdad, noting Iran’s role in Iraq’s energy supplies and its past support in the fight against Islamic State.

Tehran warns its neighbors

The aviation restrictions have also produced increasingly sharp warnings from Iranian political figures toward governments cooperating with Washington.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warned regional countries last week that if Iranian aircraft were prevented from flying, airports elsewhere in the region could also be unable to operate.

The council’s secretariat later sought to distance itself from interpretations that Iran was threatening military attacks on regional airports, saying military retaliation over the flight restrictions was not on the agenda.

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, nevertheless issued a separate warning Friday.

“Alignment with America in implementing hostile policies will remain in the memory of the Iranian people,” Mokhber wrote on X.

“Flights in the region are either free for everyone or for no one,” he added. “If Iran cannot fly or receive airport services, no country in the region will have this possibility either.”

The remarks prompted support from some hardline social-media users, including calls for Tehran to impose a no-fly zone over the Persian Gulf or threaten airlines serving neighboring countries.

Others criticized the approach. Amir Abbasi, an X user, compared the aviation warnings with Iranian threats to prevent other countries from exporting oil if Tehran was unable to do so.

“Perhaps these threats have a domestic use, but a crisis cannot be solved with slogans,” he wrote.

Mizan, the judiciary’s news agency, said a final ruling by the Special Court of Clergy’s appeals court convicted Rasaei of “publishing falsehoods with intent to harm others.” He was transferred on September 27 to Evin’s ward for clerics to serve the sentence, Mizan said.

The case dates to early 2024, when Rasaei was not an MP but editor-in-chief of the hardline weekly 9 Dey . Parliament’s legal representative referred a complaint to prosecutors on February 3, 2024, over an article alleging “manipulation by Ghalibaf in parliamentary documents.”

The case also involved a video posted on Rasaei’s Telegram channel in which he described Ghalibaf as a “parliamentary dictator.” Rasaei was acquitted over that remark but convicted over the allegation concerning parliamentary documents.

Rasaei said the headline was based on remarks by another lawmaker, but the court rejected that defense, ruling that the alleged manipulation of parliamentary documents had not been established.

The court also ordered Rasaei to publish a correction on the front page of 9 Dey using the same typeface and headline size, although the weekly has not been published for the past two years.

Fars reported that Rasaei was asked during the proceedings to apologize over the article but refused, saying he saw no reason to apologize and stood by his position.

Rasaei called the ruling “non-legal and political” in parliament but said he would comply because it was a legal judgment. He also argued that the 10-month term was excessive, saying a first-time offender convicted of publishing falsehoods should have received the minimum sentence of 91 days.

Because Rasaei is a cleric, the case was handled by the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Clergy and later the Special Court of Clergy.

Rasaei, now a Tehran lawmaker, has long been identified with the Islamic Republic’s ultraconservative wing and was formerly a member of the Paydari Front. He has said he left the party more than a decade ago because of disagreements with members of its central council, while acknowledging continued ideological closeness to it.

His conflict with Ghalibaf reflects a broader struggle within Iran’s conservative establishment. Rasaei and other ultraconservative lawmakers have repeatedly challenged Ghalibaf over his control of parliament and his role in negotiations with Washington, accusing him of crossing leadership red lines and making excessive concessions.

That confrontation intensified after Iran’s agreement with the United States. Rasaei accused Ghalibaf of backing an arrangement that prevented Tehran from retaliating for the killing of Ali Khamenei and said the deal could pave the way for a “bloodless coup.” Other Paydari-aligned and ultraconservative lawmakers have mounted similar attacks on the speaker.

Rasaei has simultaneously been a persistent opponent of President Masoud Pezeshkian and Iran’s reformist factions. He has attacked Pezeshkian over negotiations with the United States, questioned his political fitness and previously compared him to Abolhassan Banisadr, Iran’s first president, who was removed from office by parliament in 1981.

His politics therefore place him in conflict both with reformists and with more negotiation-minded conservative rivals such as Ghalibaf, highlighting divisions within the establishment over diplomacy with Washington, the use of military leverage and control of parliament.

In a commentary titled Reformists' Game in Trump's Sanctions Pressure Puzzle , Fars said Washington looks for political and social effects inside Iran whenever it applies economic, military or diplomatic pressure, and accused reformists of providing precisely the response US policymakers hope to see.

It argued that calls for negotiations under pressure, suggestions that Iran should suspend nuclear activities, support for what some reformists have termed an “honorable peace,” and doubts the usefulness of measures such as closing the Strait of Hormuz all send Washington the message that pressure is working.

“When the other side sees that external pressure is also turning into a domestic political demand for retreat and concessions, it naturally has greater motivation to maintain and even intensify that pressure,” the commentary said.

Fars drew a distinction between the military and economic fronts, arguing that direct US military action had encountered Iranian resistance and failed to achieve its objectives, while Washington continued to see sanctions and economic pressure as effective because their impact was quickly reflected in domestic calls for compromise.

The outlet said this created a cycle in which each new US measure was reinforced by political arguments inside Iran that the country had little choice but to negotiate or relinquish some of its leverage. Iranian society and the economy ultimately bear the cost of that cycle, it said.

Fars also accused reformists of constructing a “false dichotomy” between war and peace by presenting themselves as supporters of negotiations while portraying their opponents as advocates of violent confrontation. It argued that negotiations were only one tool of foreign policy and invoked the establishment's longstanding formulation that diplomacy and the “field” — a term commonly used for military and regional power — should complement one another.

The commentary comes amid an increasingly public dispute over the scope of negotiations with Washington.

IRGC-affiliated outlets and hardline lawmakers have criticized Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's with US envoy Steve Witkoff in New York, questioning whether he was authorized to hold direct discussions.

At the same time, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, a military adviser to Iran's supreme leader, has said the government has been given room to pursue negotiations.

The dispute therefore extends beyond whether Tehran should negotiate at all, focusing increasingly on how talks should be conducted, what concessions Iran can offer and whether military, nuclear and maritime leverage should be maintained alongside diplomacy.

Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization said the change applies to goods brought in by border carriers, seafarers and border cooperatives, while imports of major appliances through normal commercial channels remain prohibited.

The clarification came after Iranian media initially reported a broader lifting of restrictions on Samsung and LG.

Rather than reopening commercial imports, the measure expands a narrow exception tied specifically to Iran’s border economy.

It allows more trade and income to flow through border areas without formally abandoning a policy associated directly with Khamenei and the state’s longstanding protection of domestic manufacturers.

Destitute and discontent

Poverty and scarce employment have pushed even children and teenagers in western border regions into kolbari , the hazardous practice of carrying goods on one’s back across the border.

Allowing more goods through cooperatives and border traders could therefore provide a limited economic pressure valve.

Officials have not described the measure as an attempt to reduce discontent, but the decision to channel the exception through mechanisms designed around border employment gives it a distinct geographic focus.

Economic deprivation in Iran’s border regions also overlaps with longstanding political and security tensions. Kurdish-majority areas along the Iraqi border, where kolbari is widespread, have repeatedly seen deadly crackdowns and armed confrontations with security forces.

The move also comes as the industry the ban was designed to protect is itself struggling. Five years later, the objectives of the protectionist policy remain elusive.

Refrigerator production has fallen 25% year-on-year, television production 36% and washing-machine output 42%, according to the Statistical Center of Iran.

-appliance prices in August were 117% higher than a year earlier, while Iranian producers still import roughly $1.2 billion of components annually for four major appliance categories.

Protection has also reduced consumer choice, with the burden falling unevenly. Foreign appliances have continued to reach more affluent Iranians through unofficial channels, while lower-income consumers have fewer alternatives.

With Samsung and LG outside the normal import network, access to authorized sales, spare parts and after-sales service has also become more difficult.

The pattern resembles Iran’s automobile industry, where imports were banned or severely restricted for years while domestic producers were shielded from foreign competition.

Khamenei himself acknowledged in 2022 that domestic car quality was poor and that public complaints were justified. Subsequent attempts to reopen imports have remained tightly controlled.

Here too, the burden has been uneven. Lower-income consumers have fewer alternatives, while wealthier Iranians have greater ability to obtain imported and luxury vehicles through more expensive channels.

The result is a recurring pattern in Iran’s protected industries. Import restrictions create scarcity and opportunities for intermediaries while imposing the greatest costs on consumers with the fewest resources.

The latest appliance measure loosens one part of that system without dismantling it: a narrow opening at the borders, while the protectionist structure that produced many of the distortions remains intact.

Conservative officials and media outlets had largely welcomed Pezeshkian’s speech to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, but his to Fox News a day later provoked a sharp backlash from hardliners.

Pezeshkian said Iran was prepared to reduce its level of uranium enrichment, dilute its existing stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% and allow international verification as part of efforts to ease tensions over its nuclear program.

He also said Tehran wanted a possible agreement before the US midterm elections in November and denied that Iran had a plan to assassinate US President Donald Trump.

The contrasting reactions underscored a problem confronting Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi: declarations of defiance can command broad support within Iran’s political establishment, but the concessions involved in actually reaching an agreement with Washington are proving considerably more contentious.

“Mr. Pezeshkian, don't spout nonsense nuclear matters and uranium!” wrote hardline activist Mohammad-Hossein Chavoshi.

“We supported you when you spoke the truth, and we'll do it again; but if you step out of line, we'll deal with you accordingly. We will not give up the nuclear issue.”

But some defended Pezeshkian’s position.

“Did he say we should abandon the nuclear program?” one user wrote. “He is talking 60% enrichment. Should we have constant war, remain under siege and have no money?

“Go to a large pharmacy and see what the shortage of medicine is like, not to mention the state of businesses and the market. Nobody is saying we should surrender. We can move forward thoughtfully.”

The backlash has not been confined to Pezeshkian. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has faced sustained attacks from hardliners since presenting an Iranian proposal to the US through intermediaries on Tuesday.

The proposal sets out a phased, one-week process for implementing commitments, after which direct or indirect talks on a broader agreement could resume, according to Araghchi.

He said at a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly that Iran was ready to begin implementing the plan as soon as Washington agreed to it and that negotiations on the nuclear issue would resume after the Strait of Hormuz was reopened at the end of the seventh day.

According to Araghchi, one of the conditions is US agreement on a maritime passage arrangement through the Strait of Hormuz that has been agreed between Iran and Oman.

Although Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, confirmed in a television interview on Saturday that Araghchi had been authorized to convey Iran’s conditions to the US through intermediaries in New York, criticism of the foreign minister has continued.

On Wednesday, hardline parliamentarian Amir-Hossein Sabeti said he had registered an impeachment motion against Araghchi through parliament’s system.

Warnings of wider conflict

At the same time, political and military figures have stepped up warnings of escalation if US pressure continues.

Ahmad Alamolhoda, the Friday prayer leader in Mashhad, said Friday that Iran had new weapons that would be used in the event of another US attack. He said Iran could expand the geographical range of attacks against US forces as far as the Indian Ocean.

IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi similarly said Iran was prepared to enter new stages of confrontation with the US and could respond to another attack by “changing the geography of the conflict, using new equipment and weapons, and selecting different targets.”

The warnings have increasingly extended to neighboring countries as restrictions on Iranian aviation have tightened. Iranian flights to Najaf, Iraq, were cancelled Friday, further narrowing the country’s remaining international connections.

Rezaei warned regional countries earlier this week that if they barred Iranian flights in cooperation with Washington, flights from their own airports could also be stopped.

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser and aide to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, sharpened that warning Friday.

“Flights in the region are either free for everyone or for no one,” he wrote on X. “If Iran is unable to fly and receive airport services, no country in the region will have this possibility either.”

The competing messages highlight the difficulty facing Tehran as contacts with Washington resume: Pezeshkian and Araghchi are outlining the concessions and sequencing that a negotiated settlement could require, while hardline political and security figures emphasize Iran’s ability to widen the confrontation.