Sanctions response betrays Tehran's entrenched divides, policy drift

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) ruled on August 12, 2025 to reject a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) application to deport Afshin Pirnoon.

Documents related to his case, shared with Iran International by Global News, indicate Ottawa's push to deport former Iranian officials faces a high evidentiary bar.

Canada's government barred entry and residency for “senior officials” of the Islamic Republic in 2022 citing accusations Tehran is a state-sponsored terrorism and systematic human rights abuser.

The policy aims also to prevent the risk of so-called transnational repression by Iran or its agents among Canada's sizable Iranian diaspora community. It tasks CBSA with cases of people it deems inadmissible to Canada to the IRB for review.

Pirnoon, worked as a civil engineer and Director-General of the Road Maintenance Office at Iran’s Road Maintenance and Transportation Organization for 22 years.

The IRB found he did not to meet the statutory definition of an Iranian “senior official” or to have “significant influence over the exercise of government power," therefore the legal requirement for his being deemed inadmissible was not met.

Pirnoon came to Canada on a tourist visa in 2022 and was working as an Uber driver when the Canada Border Services Agency launched deportation proceedings.

Three-year track record

Official data indicates that 23 individuals have been identified as suspected senior Iranian officials and 21 cases have been referred to the IRB.

But only three removal orders have been issued, with just one removal carried out to date, though some have departed voluntarily.

Canada has previously referred identified Iranian officials in the country to the IRB to assess their status and determine whether they qualify as “senior officials.”

These include Majid Iranmanesh, a former director-general in the Vice-Presidency for Science and Technology, whom the IRB found to be a senior official and ordered removed on February 2, 2024.

Another was Seyed Salman Samani, former deputy minister and spokesperson of Iran’s Interior Ministry, who received a removal order on March 20, 2024.

By contrast, in several other cases—including Pirnoon’s—the IRB has found that an official position alone, attendance of official ceremonies or routine administrative duties do not prove actual influence over policymaking or the exercise of power.

The record suggests that while the government and security agencies stress threats linked to transnational repression and public-safety imperatives, the evidentiary threshold for proving seniority and influence before the IRB remains high.

According to two members of Pezeshkian's delegation, the 86-year-old hardline theocrat had privately told the relatively moderate president he could start a secret dialogue if it headed off the return of United Nations sanctions due for the week's end.

But as their plane crossed the Atlantic, Khamenei delivered a fiery speech on state television categorically ruling out any talks with Washington in a reversal that stunned Pezeshkian and Iran's top envoy, according to the two sources.

Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi later confided before a closed-door meeting of Iranian experts and academics that renewed US talks were the only avenue to halt the return of the European-triggered sanctions, three participants told Iran International.

The episode shows the Supreme Leader and his top civilian officials are deeply at odds about how to chart Tehran's way out of the lingering impasse over its nuclear program which threatens further conflict after a punishing Israeli-US war in June.

Araghchi and US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff had held indirect talks for two months before a surprise Israeli military campaign on Iran on June 13.

The attacks were capped off by US strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites which appeared to bury much of Iran's highly-enriched uranium stockpiles but left the ultimate resolution of the West's standoff with Iran on its nuclear ambitions unresolved.

Khamenei in his speech and Pezeshkian in an address before the United Nations again said Tehran does not seek a bomb and hit out at sanctions as unfair and illegal.

Closed-door meeting in Manhattan

On Friday, Sept. 26, shortly after the UN Security Council rejected Russian and Chinese proposals to suspend the snapback of UN sanctions on Iran, Pezeshkian and Araghchi met with a small group of invited Iranian experts and academics at The Luxury Collection Hotel in Manhattan.

The session was scheduled to last an hour, but before it began, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi lingered in the lobby with a few of the invitees, speaking more candidly than usual about Tehran's predicament.

“The only way to stop the snapback was direct talks,” Araghchi told them. “And only direct talks can prevent further escalation. But we are not allowed to engage.”

He even suggested the participants urge Pezeshkian to try to persuade the Supreme Leader, but none of them did that.

Khamenei's U-turn on secret US talks

Three participants in the private meeting later recounted to Iran International, on condition of anonymity, that Araghchi elaborated further before the session began.

He explained that before leaving Tehran, Pezeshkian had raised the idea of direct engagement with the Supreme Leader. The Americans, he said, had laid out three firm conditions for such talks with envoy Steve Witkoff:

1. Public, on-the-record meetings with the press present before and after.

2. Disclosure of the location of 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.

3. Full access for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Araghchi said Ayatollah Khamenei had rejected public negotiations but explicitly agreed that secret direct talks would be acceptable if they could stop the snapback.

Yet by the time the delegation landed in New York, the Supreme Leader had gone on state television to rule out any talks at all — directly contradicting his private position and leaving the delegation blindsided.

Inside Tehran’s New York huddle

The private hourlong session with Pezeshkian brought together a group of academics and experts including Houshang Amirahmadi, an academic and longtime advocate of US–Iran engagement; Vali Nasr, a scholar and former State Department adviser; and Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

The other participants included Hadi Kahalzadeh, a fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Djavad Salehi Esfahani, a professor of economics at Virginia Tech; Masoud Delbari, a senior energy expert and analyst; Ali-Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, a former Iranian parliamentarian and reformist activist; Mohammad Manzarpour, a freelance journalist; and Yousef Azizi, a PhD candidate at Virginia Tech.

Amirahmadi spoke first, and for nearly half the meeting. For about 25 minutes he laid out a stark binary: surrender or go nuclear. He argued that the United States’ main problem with Iran was not its nuclear program but its strength in the region. Washington, he said, does not want a “powerful Iran.” He strongly advised Pezeshkian that Iran must invest more heavily in its missile and military capabilities, declaring that the time had come to pursue a nuclear deterrent. His remarks went on so long that Iran’s UN envoy, Amir Saeed Iravani, eventually asked him to conclude.

Pezeshkian, throughout, took careful notes. When he returned to Tehran, he told journalists at the airport that in his meeting with Iranians, “one of the respected figures” had said the United States’ real problem with Iran was its strength. He did not name Amirahmadi but directly echoed his point.

Because of the length of Amirahmadi’s remarks, only a few others had time to weigh in. Parsi said the major sanctions were American sanctions, with UN measures adding complications but not being the primary concern. He added that despite the UN sanctions, he expected China to continue buying Iranian oil, saying Beijing would likely ignore the restrictions. Both Araghchi and Pezeshkian nodded in agreement. Parsi also insisted that direct dialogue with Washington remained the only way to avoid escalation and prevent Israel from exploiting Iran’s isolation.

Nasr offered a bleaker assessment, saying Tehran had missed its chance under President Biden and that little could now be recovered. He spoke briefly and did not engage further.

A system in crisis

The contradictions at the heart of Tehran’s decision-making were unmistakable. Privately, Khamenei had given conditional approval for secret talks, and Araghchi confided this to a few attendees, making clear that Iran’s leadership understood direct dialogue was the only path left.

Publicly, however, the Supreme Leader reversed himself overnight, denouncing all negotiations and leaving his own president and foreign minister uncertain of their mandate.

The episode revealed a system in crisis: with the president, the foreign minister, and many political figures pressing for de-escalation as the only way to avoid another war, while Khamenei alone stood in the way, shifting positions in a manner that even his closest envoys struggled to navigate.

The president’s trip to New York, meant to showcase pragmatism, instead underscored paralysis.

Editor’s Note:
Our initial report, based on sources, said that Farnaz Fassihi attended the meeting. The New York Times has since issued a statement saying that she was not present. Accordingly, her name has been removed from the report.

Videos on social media show unveiled women dancing and singing freely at these events, some of them open to the public. In Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, models recently walked a red-carpet fashion show with no hijab in sight.

Just a few years ago, such scenes brought swift arrests. Most seem to meet no retaliation, and the fashion show earned only a limp judicial summons.

Some view these as proof of state retreat under social pressure. Others say it’s not real change but fleeting gestures to distract from economic hardship and the anniversary of the 2022–23 Woman, Life, Freedom protests in which hundreds were killed.

Hardliners fight on

Hardliners denounce hijab-free events as a betrayal of revolutionary values, warning that such openings erode ideological control and deepen rifts inside the establishment.

“It’s as if all the cultural officials of the country have perished together,” one conservative commentator posted online.

“Why did we have a revolution, sacrifice our loved ones to the enemy’s blade, and create a cemetery of martyrs? Only to become so like Westerners and allow a civilization … detached from Sharia to dominate us?”

At the Shah’s palace

The clash was visible at a September concert by pop star Sirvan Khosravi on the grounds of the Shah’s former palace, now run by Tehran Municipality. Clips of unveiled women singing and dancing went viral.

Only a year earlier, women were detained at another Khosravi concert for Islamic dress code violations. This time, police stood back. Some described the atmosphere as euphoric.

“Sirvan Khosravi’s concert was more than just a performance; it was walls breaking down,” said Nazanin, a 21-year-old student. “The compulsory hijab has nearly collapsed, and women are reclaiming cultural freedoms one by one.”

On X, a user named Mostafa used the hashtag #retreat: “Did anyone notice? The attendees sang ‘I love my life’ with no interference from enforcers … or police? The Mayor and City Council paid the costs, and police chief (Ahmadreza) Radan was busy protecting the dancers!”

Both officials had long promoted and enforced Islamic dress codes.

Opening or survival instinct?

Some among Tehran’s opposition accuse both artists and fans of playing into the establishment’s hands, saying that such events coincide with families mourning the third anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s killing.

“When certain groups in the government stage free street concerts during the protests’ anniversary, a wise person shouldn’t play on its turf,” one user posted on X. “Whatever the mullahs say and do, the opposite is right.”

Some see this tolerance as a survival tactic rather than real liberalization. Others believe it signals cracks in the Islamic Republic’s cultural order.

Music journalist Bahman Babazadeh argued: “The system has learned its lesson. It has moved beyond the stupidity of canceling concerts. It’s no big deal if a few reactionary zealots get angry by these images. For survival, the system has adapted.”

Filmmaker and academic Ali Azhari suggested the state tolerates “safe” cultural expressions while clamping down on those with social impact.

“The regime has concluded, more or less, that cultural mediocrity is harmless,” he wrote.

“Pop beats, commercial comedies with a few sexual jokes … don’t really pose a threat to the system. But when culture drives real social mobilization, there is no compromise.”

Tarahomi, head of legal affairs at the Anti-Narcotics Headquarters, told state media that speculation about legalizing poppy cultivation was misplaced. “What is under consideration is licensing controlled cultivation of certain poppy species such as Papaver bracteatum -- also known as the Iranian poppy -- for medical use, not opium poppy,” he said.

He explained that Iran had voluntarily halted poppy farming after the 1979 revolution, meeting pharmaceutical needs through seizures and imports. But declining production in Afghanistan has forced Tehran to consider limited licensed cultivation for morphine and related medicines under international conventions.

Tarahomi said licensed crops would be grown only on enclosed land with state purchase and factory processing, leaving no possibility of diversion. By contrast, he warned, illegal growers would face escalating penalties: “The first time a fine, the second time a fine and prison, and from the third time onward, fine, prison and confiscation of agricultural land.”

Officials have previously reported a sharp fall in opium seizures and rising concerns over illegal cultivation in some provinces, with authorities destroying thousands of hectares of illicit fields.

“For nearly half a century, the front of arrogance has employed every kind of conspiracy and enmity against the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic,” Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei told the Supreme Judicial Council, using a phrase Iranian authorities employ to refer to Western powers.

He said economic siege was “nothing new” for Iranians, adding: “At this time, when enemies are focusing all efforts to bring down the Iranian nation and system, we must be vigilant that their agents do not infiltrate and damage national unity.”

“Those who through psychological operations weaken people’s spirit and spread fear will face legal measures,” he said, warning that profiteers or individuals disrupting essential goods markets “whether out of greed, negligence, or acting as enemy agents, will be dealt with decisively under the law.”

Earlier this month, Iran’s prosecutor general’s office warned that media and online outlets would also face legal action if their coverage of the reimposed UN sanctions undermines public morale.

Judiciary’s news outlet Mizan said some websites and channels had posted “sensitive content” about rising prices, adding that such reporting threatened the “psychological security of society.”

The judiciary has previously pursued cases against journalists and citizens over commentary on political and economic issues.