Protests in Iran have escalated significantly, driven by a sharp decline in the national currency, the rial, which has fallen to between 1.38 million and 1.45 million rials per U.S. dollar. The demonstrations began on December 29, 2025, and have spread across various cities including Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad, Hamedan, and Qeshm. Participants are voicing their frustrations over economic hardships and demanding greater personal freedoms alongside political change.

Many shopkeepers joined the protests by closing their businesses in solidarity with demonstrators expressing dissatisfaction with both economic conditions and government policies. Protesters have chanted slogans such as “student, be the voice of your people,” “death to Islamic Republic,” and “No to scarf, no to suppression,” indicating a desire for reform beyond just economic relief.

The scale of these protests is notable as they are among the largest since those following Mahsa Amini's death in police custody in 2022. Reports indicate a heavy police presence at demonstrations with instances of tear gas being used against protesters.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has acknowledged protesters' grievances on social media and emphasized his commitment to addressing "legitimate demands" through reforms and dialogue with protest leaders. However, his statements have not quelled public unrest as demonstrators continue to express broader demands for freedom.

The Iranian economy is currently facing severe inflation rates estimated around 50%, with food prices reportedly increasing by 72% compared to last year. The government is also planning tax increases for the upcoming Iranian new year amid ongoing economic instability characterized by high unemployment rates and energy shortages.

Internationally, Iran faces external pressures related to its nuclear program amid threats from former U.S. President Donald Trump regarding military action if Iran resumes its nuclear activities. As tensions rise domestically due to civil discontent and externally due to geopolitical challenges involving adversaries like Israel, the future trajectory of Iran remains uncertain amidst calls for significant reform or leadership change following Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's eventual departure from power.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (students) (tehran) (rial) (inflation)

The article discusses the ongoing protests in Iran, focusing on the causes, scale, and responses from both citizens and government officials. However, it lacks actionable information for a normal person. There are no clear steps or choices provided that a reader can take in response to the situation described. The article does not suggest any resources or practical actions that individuals could realistically pursue.

In terms of educational depth, while the article offers context about the protests and some background on economic conditions in Iran, it remains largely superficial. It mentions significant events like Mahsa Amini's death but does not delve into deeper systemic issues or explain how these factors interconnect to create the current unrest. The statistics regarding currency value are presented without sufficient explanation of their implications for everyday life.

Regarding personal relevance, while the situation affects many people in Iran directly—impacting their safety and freedoms—it has limited relevance for readers outside of this context. Most readers may find it difficult to connect personally with these events unless they have direct ties to Iran.

The public service function of the article is minimal; it recounts events without providing warnings or guidance that would help individuals act responsibly or safely within this context. There is no practical advice offered that an ordinary reader could follow.

In terms of long-term impact, the article focuses primarily on a current event without offering insights into how individuals might prepare for similar situations in their own lives or communities. It does not provide lasting benefits or lessons that could be applied beyond understanding this specific protest.

Emotionally and psychologically, while the article presents a serious situation that may evoke feelings of concern or helplessness among readers, it does not offer clarity or constructive ways to respond to such feelings. Instead of fostering calmness or actionable thinking, it risks creating anxiety about distant political unrest.

There is also an absence of clickbait language; however, there are dramatic elements present which serve more to engage than inform effectively without substance.

Missed opportunities include failing to provide guidance on how individuals can stay informed about global events like these protests or how they might support human rights initiatives more broadly. Readers could benefit from learning how to compare independent news sources for varied perspectives on international issues and considering general safety practices when discussing sensitive topics related to governance and civil rights.

To add real value beyond what was presented in the article: Individuals should consider developing critical thinking skills by examining multiple viewpoints on international news stories before forming opinions. They can also engage with local community organizations focused on human rights advocacy as a way to contribute positively toward global issues affecting freedom and equality worldwide. Additionally, staying informed through reputable news sources can empower them with knowledge about global affairs while fostering discussions around civic responsibility and activism within their own communities.

The text uses strong language when describing the protesters' slogans, such as “death to Islamic Republic.” This choice of words can evoke strong emotions and may lead readers to view the protests as more radical or extreme. By highlighting this particular slogan, the text emphasizes a confrontational stance against the government, which could shape public perception of the protesters as aggressive rather than simply seeking reform.

The phrase “full-scale war” used by President Pezeshkian creates a dramatic image that suggests an intense conflict between Iran and Western nations. This wording can lead readers to believe that Iran is under significant external threat, which may distract from internal issues like economic instability. Such language can manipulate feelings about national security and unity while downplaying domestic grievances.

The text mentions that many shop owners joined protests by closing their businesses in solidarity. However, it does not provide details on how widespread this action was or if it had any significant impact on the protests. By omitting these details, it may create an impression that there is a larger consensus among business owners than might actually exist, thus shaping perceptions about public support for the protests.

When discussing President Pezeshkian's acknowledgment of protesters' grievances, the text states he emphasized his commitment to reforms but notes this has not quelled unrest. This framing suggests that his response is inadequate without providing context on what specific reforms he proposed or why they failed to satisfy demonstrators. The lack of detail can mislead readers into thinking there is a clear disconnect between government actions and public demands without exploring complexities.

The report mentions heavy police presence and instances of tear gas being used against protesters but does not specify how often these actions occurred or their severity. This choice leaves out crucial information about police conduct during demonstrations, potentially leading readers to assume violence was widespread without evidence supporting such claims. The omission could skew perceptions about law enforcement's role in managing civil unrest.

By stating "the scale of these protests marks them as some of the largest seen since those following Mahsa Amini's death," the text connects current events with past tragedies without fully explaining their significance or context. This comparison might evoke sympathy for current protesters by linking them to a well-known incident but does not clarify how motivations have evolved since then. It subtly shapes reader emotions while leaving out important historical nuances related to both events.

When referring to inflation and economic instability affecting daily life for many citizens, the wording implies a direct cause-and-effect relationship between government policies and personal hardship without detailing specific policies responsible for these conditions. This generalization simplifies complex economic issues into blame directed at leadership while ignoring other potential factors at play in Iran’s economy today. It shapes reader understanding by suggesting clear accountability where nuances exist instead.

Pezeshkian’s comments regarding Western nations are framed in a way that positions him defensively against external criticism while failing to address internal challenges directly faced by Iranians today. By using phrases like "responding to comments from former U.S. President Donald Trump," it shifts focus away from local issues towards international relations instead—potentially minimizing urgent domestic concerns raised during protests themselves through distraction with foreign politics.

The text conveys a range of emotions that reflect the intense situation in Iran amid ongoing protests. One prominent emotion is anger, which is evident in the slogans chanted by protesters, such as “death to Islamic Republic.” This expression of anger is strong and serves to highlight the deep dissatisfaction with the current regime. It emphasizes a collective frustration not only with economic hardships but also with political repression, aiming to resonate with readers who may empathize with the desire for change.

Another significant emotion present is fear, particularly regarding the heavy police presence and use of tear gas against demonstrators. The phrase “full-scale war” used by President Pezeshkian evokes a sense of urgency and danger, suggesting that the situation could escalate further. This fear can instill worry in readers about the safety of those involved in protests and about potential government crackdowns, prompting them to pay closer attention to developments in Iran.

Sadness also permeates the text, especially when referencing past protests following Mahsa Amini’s death. The mention of her tragic fate serves as a poignant reminder of personal loss and injustice, evoking sympathy from readers who may feel sorrow for those affected by oppressive laws and practices. This emotional weight encourages readers to connect on a human level with individuals enduring suffering under authoritarian rule.

The writer employs various techniques to enhance these emotional responses. For instance, using vivid language like "dramatic decline" when discussing the rial's value amplifies feelings of instability and crisis. Additionally, phrases such as "expressing dissatisfaction" carry an emotional undertone that suggests deeper unrest beyond mere complaints; it indicates a yearning for fundamental rights and freedoms.

Repetition plays a crucial role as well; reiterating themes like economic hardship alongside calls for political change reinforces urgency while building momentum behind protesters' demands. By framing these issues together, it creates an impression that they are interconnected crises requiring immediate attention.

Overall, these emotions guide reader reactions by fostering empathy towards protesters’ struggles while simultaneously instilling concern about their safety amidst escalating tensions. The writer’s choice of emotionally charged language helps persuade readers to consider not just the facts but also the human experiences behind them—encouraging support for those seeking change in Iran's socio-political landscape.