Forces given ‘blank check’ to kill protesters in Iran, senior official says

Decision-making circles in the United States and Israel have moved past diplomacy with Iran, viewing military action as effectively decided, with only the timing still under debate, a Western source familiar with coordination talks told Iran International.

According to the source, the key question in current meetings is no longer whether an attack will take place, but when an appropriate operational and political window will emerge — a window that could open in the coming days or take shape over the course of several weeks.

The source emphasized that, at this stage, the logic being discussed — unlike in previous periods — is not based on “reaching a new agreement.”

Continue reading

According to the source, the key question in current meetings is no longer whether an attack will take place, but when an appropriate operational and political window will emerge — a window that could open in the coming days or take shape over the course of several weeks.

The source emphasized that, at this stage, the logic being discussed — unlike in previous periods — is not based on “reaching a new agreement.”

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he planned to speak with Iran, even as he sent another warship to the Middle East and the Pentagon chief said the military would be ready to carry out whatever the president decided.

Iran however says it will not engage in negotiations unless President Trump stops threatening it.

The source told Iran International that recent assessments identify the primary objective as delivering a decisive blow to maximally weaken and ultimately collapse Iran’s governing structure; a scenario that, in his words, is not comparable in scale or intensity to anything Iran has experienced so far.

The source said the operation under discussion would be “unprecedented,” stressing: “This time, we will be facing an attack the likes of which have not been seen before.”

According to the source, joint US-Israeli discussions have also concluded that current conditions for action differ from the past.

He said decision-makers believe the present situation has created a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” and that, as a result, willingness to accept risk — compared with the 12-day war — has increased markedly.

The source said that during the 12-day war last June, both Washington and Tel Aviv avoided taking greater risks, but the prevailing view now is that the current moment must be seized.

In June, Israel launched a surprise military offensive against Iran, followed by US strikes on June 22 targeting key nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow.

The attacks were launched when Iran failed to reach an agreement with the United States within a 60-day deadline set by Trump.

The US president said on Friday that he had directly communicated a deadline to Iran for reaching a deal, but offered no further details.

'Israel on full alert'

The source also said Israel’s role could alter the scope of the scenario ahead. According to him, if Israel becomes directly involved — something he said has been planned for — the scale of the operation would expand, and in that case, the 12-day war would appear “very small” compared with the plans currently on the table.

The source said Israel is on full alert and that one scenario under discussion involves waiting for a “spark” to trigger the next phase, such as Iran attempting to fire a first missile toward Israel, which could then be used as justification for launching a far broader and more destructive campaign.

“The decision has been made. This will happen. The only question is when.”

The protests began in Tehran and several other cities in late December, initially driven by public anger over the sharp fall in Iran’s national currency, soaring inflation and worsening economic conditions.

A series of messages circulated in Afghan migrant WhatsApp and Telegram groups during the early days of the protests, urging migrants not to participate, a source told Afghanistan International.

The messages warned that sharing photos or videos could have serious consequences, reflecting widespread fear of arrest, deportation or forced expulsion.

An Afghan migrant living in Mashhad told Afghanistan International that many Afghans in Iran deliberately avoid political activity because of their precarious legal status, particularly protesting the government.

He added that some migrants joined the demonstrations nonetheless due to severe economic hardship.

Sources also said that amid an increase in security checkpoints, some Afghan migrants began using images of senior Islamic Republic figures as phone wallpapers, fearing inspections of their mobile phones by security forces.

Afghanistan International confirmed the identities of several Afghan nationals killed during the protests, including 16-year-old Amirhossein Moradi, who was shot in Mashhad and later died in hospital.

The human rights organization Hengaw also confirmed the deaths of three other Afghan nationals in the city. Sources say families were warned against speaking to the media before being allowed to bury their relatives.

Additional cases have been reported in Tehran, Karaj and Isfahan, including Afghan migrants and children killed by direct or indiscriminate fire, some while not participating in protests. Internet restrictions and pressure on families have made it difficult to establish accurate figures.

Afghan migrants have previously been killed during protests in Iran. During the 2022 nationwide unrest, Amnesty International reported that at least two Afghan teenagers were killed by Iranian security forces, with their families later threatened into silence.

Iran’s consul general in Herat has denied Afghan involvement in the recent protests, claiming some actors are attempting to damage relations between Iran and Afghanistan.

More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during the January 8-9 crackdown on nationwide protests, making it the deadliest two-day protest massacre in history, according to documents reviewed by Iran International's Editorial Board.

The controversy began earlier this week when Kattan, who has more than five million Instagram followers, reposted a video related to the unrest in Iran.

The footage showed supporters of the Islamic Republic burning images of exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi and U.S. President Donald Trump—content critics said closely resembled state propaganda.

Many Iranians, both inside the country and in the diaspora, reacted with anger. Videos soon began circulating online showing users smashing, burning, or discarding Huda Beauty products in protest.

Some clips took a more satirical or graphic approach, depicting Kattan covering killed protesters with makeup, applying cosmetics to Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, or appearing dressed as a cleric.

Others showed palettes and lipsticks dumped into garbage bins, gestures meant to signal rejection of the brand and what critics saw as Kattan’s misstep.

Kattan deleted the original Instagram story within hours, but the backlash continued and soon extended to prominent figures in the beauty community.

Nicknames such as “Mullah Beauty” and “Ayatollah Huda” quickly spread online, underscoring the belief among critics that the post amplified regime talking points rather than the voices of protesters.

Naz Golrokh, a US-based Iranian influencer with more than nine million Instagram followers, was among the first high-profile figures to call for a boycott. “If you can’t stand with innocent people, at the very least, don’t spread lies against them,” she wrote, urging her followers to stop purchasing Huda Beauty products.

Her post—showing a pile of destroyed cosmetics—received more than one million likes, becoming a rallying image for the campaign.

Iranian-American celebrity hairstylist Henry Zador also joined the boycott, posting videos of himself discarding Huda Beauty products and urging others not to underestimate their collective commercial influence.

“If Iran’s revolution succeeds and all major cosmetics companies enter the market, Huda Beauty will have no place in that large market,” Zador told Iran International.

Calls for accountability soon reached major retailers, with some users urging chains such as Sephora to reconsider carrying the brand unless Kattan addressed the criticism publicly.

Even Kattan’s sister and longtime collaborator, Mona Kattan, unfollowed her on social media amid the backlash. Mona, who has 3.8 million followers, has been more openly supportive of Iranian protesters, highlighting divisions within the beauty community over how to respond to the unrest.

Jehan Hashem, an Iraqi influencer with 15.5 million followers, also posted stories of unfollowing Kattan and expressing solidarity with Iranians.

Kattan later posted a series of messages denying support for the Islamic Republic and saying she did not feel qualified to take a public position on what she described as a complex internal political situation.

She also cited past US military interventions, including in Iraq, as shaping her reluctance to endorse foreign involvement.

For many critics, that framing deepened the backlash. They argued that labeling the uprising an “internal issue” minimized the scale of state violence and echoed language long used by Iranian officials to deflect international scrutiny. Others said that if she felt insufficiently informed, she should not have posted at all.

The episode follows earlier controversies involving Kattan over social media commentary on geopolitical issues, a history that has made critics quicker to scrutinize her public statements.

Huda Beauty is widely considered one of the largest cosmetics brands in the Middle East.

While no official data exists on its market share in Iran, the scale of engagement with the boycott—including visible participation by Instagram users inside the country—suggests it could have a tangible impact on the brand’s standing there.

Following the bloodshed of January 8 and 9, Iranian authorities imposed the harshest media restrictions in decades, shutting down newspapers and severely limiting internet access in an effort to conceal the scale of repression.

After about a week, officials appeared to conclude that a total blackout was counterproductive: the absence of newspapers made it harder to project an image of normal life. Editors were summoned back to newsrooms, even though most journalists still lacked internet access.

With little they could do, many reporters went home, a journalist at the moderate daily Shargh later recalled in an Instagram post. Hours later, they were called back. “You must publish a newspaper tomorrow morning,” authorities told editors, “even if it is only one page.”

The papers that followed were thin and tightly controlled. Many carried only a handful of short items drawn from state-approved agencies, alongside recycled material from months or even years earlier.

At the same time, the government shifted its internet controls from broad blacklisting to a strict whitelisting system, allowing access only to approved users and outlets.

For nearly two weeks, outlets affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards — primarily Tasnim and Fars — dominated the limited online output, carrying statements from commanders and hardline officials and promoting the narrative that the unrest was “foreign-backed terrorism.”

When Fars opened its comment sections earlier this week, readers flooded the site with angry and often derogatory remarks aimed at the government. Moderators removed posts and blocked users, but commenters returned under new identities.

Critical comments often remained visible for minutes before deletion. Within days, Fars shut down comments entirely.

Khabar Online, one of the first websites permitted to resume limited updates as part of efforts to “normalize” the situation, encountered a similar problem. Reader comments quickly overwhelmed official narratives, prompting tighter controls.

By January 27, several newspapers and websites had cautiously resumed publication, avoiding any reference to the true death toll.

One exception was Etemad, whose managing editor, Elias Hazrati—also head of President Masoud Pezeshkian’s advisory public-relations board—published casualty figures approved by authorities, widely seen as a fraction of the real numbers.

Internet access has since been partially restored, but remains unpredictable. Some businesses are granted just 30 minutes of access per day at designated government offices after signing pledges not to cross official “red lines.” Their online activity is monitored.

Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram function intermittently through VPNs. Even when messages are sent, replies often fail to arrive. Platforms commonly used for political communication, especially X, remain largely inaccessible.

Authorities say YouTube access has been restored at universities, and some pre-protest interviews have reappeared online.

The YouTube-based news program Hasht-e Shab (8 PM) resumed after a three-week suspension. In its first broadcast, it reported that the brother of one staff member had been shot dead during the protests.

With senior officials avoiding public appearances, the program interviewed its own managing editor, Ali Mazinani, who said internet access had become “critical” even for media outlets, particularly as Iran faces heightened external threats.

He said journalists are now barred from government offices they once covered and criticized the lack of transparency surrounding the crackdown and casualty figures.

The restrictions appear to have achieved their aim, narrowing what can be reported and publicly discussed about the crackdown—for now.