Students held large anti-government demonstrations and memorial gatherings on multiple university campuses across Iran, signaling an escalation in campus activism and public rejection of state symbols.

Protests and symbolic acts took place at major institutions in Tehran — including the University of Tehran, Sharif University of Technology, Amirkabir (Amir Kabir) University of Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, and Alzahra University — and at universities elsewhere such as Ferdowsi University of Mashhad and institutions in Isfahan. Demonstrations coincided with 40-day mourning ceremonies and memorials for people killed during nationwide unrest that began in late December 2025. Students chanted anti-government slogans, expressed opposition to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and in some cases voiced support for exiled opposition figure Reza Pahlavi; some student organisers urged further campus protests.

Protesters carried and, in multiple incidents, burned the current national flag of the Islamic Republic; other demonstrators raised the pre-1979 Lion and Sun emblem associated with the monarchy. Actions at campuses included dancing, music, sit-ins, attempts to rename institutions back to pre-revolutionary names, and formation of student groups advocating secular governance, territorial integrity, and free elections.

Clashes occurred between anti-government students and pro-establishment students or members of the Basij paramilitary; footage and reports show confrontations at entrances and inside campuses. University officials warned of legal or disciplinary action, and some participants received or reported summonses to disciplinary committees. Authorities increased security presence around campuses, carried out campus searches according to reports, and in some cases restricted attendance at memorials. State-affiliated outlets and officials reported pro-regime student rallies and accused protesters of celebrating deaths from earlier unrest; some pro-establishment demonstrations were shown burning U.S. and Israeli flags.

Rights groups, activist networks, and monitoring organisations reported widespread state repression linked to the unrest, including arrests, allegations of torture in custody, and deaths in detention. One detainee held by Revolutionary Guards intelligence in Mashhad was reported by family accounts to have sustained fatal injuries while in detention; those accounts included allegations of restricted family access, a prevented autopsy, and tightly controlled burial. Officials have provided differing accounts of detainee treatment and cause of death. Human rights organisations and U.S.-based monitoring groups reported fatality estimates for the earlier nationwide protests that differ from official tallies: one U.S.-based group reported at least 7,015 deaths; various summaries cite at least 7,000 deaths; Iranian authorities reported 3,117 deaths; a UN rapporteur was cited as suggesting over 20,000 may have been killed. Amnesty International said at least 30 people face the death penalty in connection with the protests. Tens of thousands of arrests, including of students and schoolchildren, were reported in some accounts; authorities have not published comprehensive arrest figures.

Government responses included tightened internet restrictions and disruptions to international calls, and officials declined an independent UN fact-finding mission while saying they had formed a local inquiry. State messaging and online narratives accused foreign intelligence services of driving unrest; analysts documented coordinated social media amplification of those narratives that reached audiences outside Iran. Some foreign commentators and influencers circulated narratives aligned with the Iranian government’s claims.

Internationally, the unrest took place amid heightened regional tensions. Reports noted U.S. military deployments to the region and statements from U.S. officials warning Tehran against further violence; those developments were linked in some accounts to diplomatic pressure over Iran’s nuclear program and to recent strikes on facilities believed to be tied to that program. Iranian diplomats were reported to be preparing for nuclear talks in Geneva at the time of the campus protests.

The demonstrations reflect a widening rupture between segments of Iranian society and the Islamic Republic, manifested in increasingly direct attacks on regime symbols, the adoption of pre-revolutionary emblems, sustained campus activism, and intensified state measures to suppress dissent. Investigations into deaths and allegations of abuse remain contested, casualty figures are disputed, and internet restrictions continue to complicate independent verification of events.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (basij) (mashhad) (arrests) (crackdown)

Overall judgment: the article is informative about events and claims but offers almost no practical, actionable help for an ordinary reader. It reports protests, symbols used, state responses, and allegations of repression, but it does not give clear steps, safety guidance, or tools someone can use now.

Actionable information The article does not provide usable actions. It describes what protesters did, how authorities responded, and how narratives were shaped online, but it gives no clear choices, instructions, or checklists for readers. There are no practical resources (hotlines, legal aid contacts, safe reporting methods) or step‑by‑step advice for people affected by the events. For anyone seeking to act safely or help others on the ground, the piece offers no operational guidance and thus fails as a how‑to resource.

Educational depth The article gives a useful catalog of events, symbols, slogans, and allegations, but it is mostly descriptive. It does not systematically explain underlying causes, the institutional mechanics of repression, legal frameworks, or how social media amplification networks are identified and measured. There are no data, charts, or methodological notes that clarify how conclusions were reached or how reliable various reports are. As a result it informs about what happened at a surface level but does not teach readers how to assess sources, interpret conflicting accounts, or understand the structural drivers of the unrest.

Personal relevance For readers closely connected to Iran—students, families of detainees, activists—the material is highly relevant and potentially urgent. For most other readers the relevance is indirect: it illustrates political unrest and human rights concerns but does not provide guidance on decisions about safety, travel, finances, or health. The article fails to translate its reporting into practical implications someone outside the immediate context could use.

Public service function The article lacks clear public service value. It does not include warnings, safety guidance, emergency procedures, or advice for people attending protests or supporting those affected. By primarily recounting events and allegations, it serves information and awareness goals but not the practical need to act responsibly or stay safe.

Practicality of any advice given There is little to evaluate because the article offers almost no concrete advice. Mentions of online narratives and state messaging are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and any implied recommendations (for example, to beware disinformation) are not developed into simple, realistic steps an ordinary reader could follow.

Long-term usefulness The piece documents a widening societal rupture, which may help readers understand trends. However, it stops short of helping people plan for future risks or opportunities. It does not suggest durable strategies for civil society resilience, legal advocacy, or personal preparedness that would help readers over the long term.

Emotional and psychological impact The article’s tone and content may increase anxiety, fear, or helplessness because it recounts allegations of torture, deaths in custody, and harsh reprisals without offering coping guidance or constructive avenues for response. It provides few signposts for readers who want to act responsibly or seek help, which can intensify feelings of despair rather than empowerment.

Clickbait or sensationalism The piece relies on dramatic events and allegations to hold attention, but it does not appear to invent details. Still, the focus on graphic claims and symbolic acts without added context or actionable follow‑up can come across as attention‑driven reporting rather than service journalism.

Missed opportunities The article could have taught readers how to evaluate competing claims, identify reliable sources, or take basic safety steps. It could have pointed to credible human rights organizations, explained common tactics used in custody or legal processes, outlined how to document abuses safely, or offered guidance for families navigating restricted information. None of these were provided.

Simple ways to learn more and verify claims Compare multiple independent accounts from organizations with established verification practices. Look for consistent details across state statements, eyewitness reports, hospital or morgue records when available, and reporting by reputable international human rights groups. Consider the source’s proximity to events and whether it has a history of accuracy. Watch for corroborating multimedia evidence (photographs, video) that include verifiable context like timestamps, landmarks, or metadata, while remaining aware that such material can be manipulated.

Practical, realistic guidance the article did not provide

If you are in or near areas of unrest, prioritize your immediate safety. Know at least two exit routes from any place you visit and avoid areas where confrontations are likely. Keep your phone charged and share your location with one trusted contact only when you judge doing so safe; periodically check in with that contact using short messages rather than broadcasting movements on public social media. Carry basic supplies (water, identification, any essential medication) and be aware that authorities may escalate measures suddenly, so avoid fixed positions near large crowds.

If you are supporting someone affected by arrest or detention, document what you can without creating additional risk. Record the time you last heard from them, any known locations or charges, and the names and contact details of witnesses. Preserve copies of relevant documents and messages in multiple secure locations. Reach out to established human rights or legal aid organizations for guidance on secure communication and next steps rather than relying solely on social media advice.

When evaluating conflicting reports, use simple cross‑checking: does more than one independent source report the same specific allegation? Are there direct forms of evidence (photos, medical reports, official documents) and do they have contextual markers that make them plausible? Be cautious about single anonymous claims, and note whether accounts are corroborated by organizations that publish methods or evidence. Consider motive and access: state actors, opposition groups, and foreign commentators each have incentives that shape their narratives.

For online safety and disinformation awareness, treat viral narratives skeptically. Avoid resharing images or claims you cannot corroborate. Check timestamps and obvious context clues in images and videos. Prefer analyses from researchers who explain how they detected coordinated amplification or bots and who provide reproducible methods. If you must communicate about sensitive events, limit identifying details that could endanger people involved.

If the situation could affect travel or work, plan contingencies. Keep copies of travel documents and make a simple financial fallback plan such as a small emergency fund accessible without electronic banking. Inform family or employers of your general plans without sharing real‑time whereabouts unnecessarily. Consider travel insurance and familiarize yourself with your country’s consular resources, noting that access and effectiveness can vary.

These steps use common‑sense safety, source‑evaluation, and planning principles that apply broadly. They do not require external data or specific local facts, but they provide realistic ways for readers to respond more safely and thoughtfully than the original article enables.

"marking an escalation in public rejection of state symbols." This phrase frames protests as a clear upward trend and casts them as broadly rejecting the state. It helps the idea that many people oppose the state and hides uncertainty about how widespread the sentiment is. The wording is strong and suggests a generalization from specific events, which could overstate scale. It does not show evidence for how many people share that rejection.

"chanted slogans against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei while expressing support for exiled opposition figure Prince Reza Pahlavi." Putting both actions together links anti-government slogans with support for a monarchist figure, implying a direct alignment. This may help the view that protesters are monarchist or explicitly pro-Pahlavi, and hides nuance about diverse motives. The wording bundles different expressions as a single clear stance. It risks oversimplifying who protesters support.

"raising of the pre-1979 Lion and Sun emblem" Naming this symbol highlights a return to pre-revolutionary imagery and frames protesters as embracing a specific historical symbol. This supports the narrative of monarchist or nationalist sentiment and hides other possible protest symbols or messages. The text uses the emblem as a clear sign of political alignment, which narrows interpretation. It does not show whether most protesters used this emblem or only a few.

"formation of student groups advocating secular governance, territorial integrity, and free elections." Listing these goals presents student groups in a positive, civic-minded way and helps a liberal-democratic framing. It hides any other agendas those groups might have and emphasizes broadly popular values. The choice of these particular terms casts the groups as reasonable reformers. No alternative student aims are given, so the picture is partial.

"clashes with pro-government Basij supporters" This phrase identifies a named pro-government force as opposing protesters, which highlights conflict along political lines. It helps the reader see a clear antagonist and hides complexity about how clashes started or who initiated violence. The wording implies direct confrontation without showing full context. It may bias readers to view Basij supporters as aggressors or focal opponents.

"warnings from university officials about legal or disciplinary action, campus searches, and threats of suspension or expulsion for participants." Listing punishments stresses institutional repression and frames universities as enforcing state control. This helps the view that authorities punish dissent and hides whether warnings were routine policy, selective, or legally justified. The sequence builds a sense of escalation by official bodies. It does not present any official rationale or evidence for the measures.

"families and communities transforming funerals and 40th-day memorials into political acts that substitute religious rites with music, dance, and national or pre-Islamic symbols." This wording frames cultural mourning as politicized and describes a swap of religious ritual for nationalist or pre-Islamic elements. It helps the idea that protesters reject religious norms and hides continued religious motivations or hybrid practices. The phrase "substitute" is strong and suggests a deliberate replacement rather than varied expression. It presents symbolic choices as uniformly political.

"Reports from rights groups and activist sources describe severe state repression linked to the unrest, including arrests, alleged torture in custody, and deaths." Using "rights groups and activist sources" groups together named perspectives and highlights serious accusations. This helps the narrative of state brutality and hides whether other sources corroborate or dispute these claims. The word "alleged" is used for torture but not for "severe state repression," which presents repression as settled while casting some detail as unconfirmed. The balance of language shifts certainty.

"One detainee held by Revolutionary Guards intelligence in Mashhad was reported to have sustained fatal injuries while in detention, with family accounts alleging restricted access, a prevented autopsy, and a tightly controlled burial." This sentence centers a detailed, emotive account from family sources and names the agency involved, which amplifies culpability. It helps the impression of targeted, secretive abuse and hides other possible explanations or official findings. The sequence of allegations builds a narrative of cover-up. The text reports family claims without presenting independent corroboration.

"Conflicting official and witness accounts about detainee treatment and cause of death remain part of the record." This phrase acknowledges disagreement but treats both sides as equally present, which can create a false balance. It helps the idea that the truth is contested and hides the relative credibility or weight of the accounts. The passive wording "remain part of the record" avoids saying who reports which version. It softens responsibility by not specifying sources.

"State information campaigns and online narratives portraying the protests as driven by foreign intelligence agencies were amplified on social media" This wording claims the state promoted a foreign interference narrative and that it spread via social media. It helps the idea of a coordinated disinformation effort and hides evidence about the scale or direct state control of the campaigns. The active verb "were amplified" points to dissemination but does not specify by whom. It frames the narrative as manufactured without detailing proof.

"analysts and researchers documenting coordinated amplification from accounts and networks that reached audiences outside Iran." Citing "analysts and researchers" gives specialist weight to the claim of coordinated amplification and helps the interpretation that the campaign was organized. It hides information about who the analysts are, their methods, or opposing analysis. The phrase "coordinated amplification" is technical and persuasive without showing sample data in the text. It leans toward a conclusion of orchestration.

"International responses included criticism of the crackdown and delayed multilateral condemnation, while some foreign commentators and influencers circulated narratives aligning with the Iranian government’s claims." This sentence divides international reactions into condemnation and sympathy for the government, which frames a polarized global response. It helps the view that support for the state exists abroad and hides specifics about which countries or commentators took which positions. The phrase "delayed multilateral condemnation" suggests sluggish international action and shapes judgment about foreign governments. It lacks detail to judge balance.

"The protests reflect a widening rupture between segments of Iranian society and the Islamic Republic, signaled by increasingly direct attacks on regime symbols, adoption of pre-revolutionary emblems, sustained campus activism, and intensified state measures to suppress dissent." This concluding claim interprets events as evidence of a deep societal rupture and lists causes as signs. It helps a narrative of long-term political crisis and hides alternative explanations (isolated incidents, localized movements). The abstract phrasing asserts a broad trend from specific acts. It uses causal language ("reflect," "signaled") to present interpretation as fact.

The text conveys anger strongly and repeatedly. Words and actions such as "burned the national flag," "chanted slogans against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei," "escalation in public rejection," and "direct attacks on regime symbols" are vivid and charged. These phrases show anger among protesters toward the government and its leaders. The anger is portrayed as intense and collective: multiple universities, repeated symbolic acts, and chants amplify a sense of widespread, determined rage. This anger aims to make the reader feel the depth of opposition and to signal that protests are serious and confronting the state. It also works to justify or explain strong responses from authorities, framing the unrest as an emotional and political rupture.

The passage carries fear and threat on several fronts. References to "severe state repression," "arrests," "alleged torture in custody," "fatal injuries while in detention," and "warnings ... about legal or disciplinary action, campus searches, and threats of suspension or expulsion" create an atmosphere of danger and vulnerability. The fear is both individual (detainees, students at risk) and collective (communities facing repression). This fear is strong enough to unsettle the reader and to raise concern about human rights and safety. It functions to evoke sympathy for those targeted and to warn that participation in protest carries serious personal costs.

Sorrow and grief appear through descriptions of funerals and memorials being transformed into political acts: "families and communities transforming funerals and 40th-day memorials," "mourners ... chanted anti-government slogans," and accounts of deaths in custody. The sorrow is often intertwined with anger, turning mourning into protest. The emotional intensity of grief is moderate to strong: it is personal (families, memorial rituals) and public (memorials becoming arenas of dissent). This sorrow seeks to humanize the cost of the unrest and to deepen the reader’s empathy for victims and bereaved families.

Pride and nostalgia are present in the raising of the pre-1979 Lion and Sun emblem and the invocation of "monarchist and nationalist imagery," as well as calls to "restore former institution names." These elements express a longing for a past national identity and pride in alternative symbols. The pride is not merely celebratory but symbolic and political; it is moderate and purposeful, signaling a desire to reclaim history and identity. It guides the reader to see the protests as not only oppositional but also rooted in a distinct national narrative.

Defiance and resolve are conveyed through sustained campus activism, formation of student groups advocating secular governance and free elections, and the repeated use of symbolic acts. Phrases like "formation of student groups," "sustained campus activism," and "increasingly direct attacks on regime symbols" imply determination and persistence. The strength of this resolve is high, suggesting organized, continuing resistance. This emotion steers the reader toward viewing the movement as durable and intentional rather than fleeting.

Distrust and accusation appear in mentions of "state information campaigns," "online narratives portraying the protests as driven by foreign intelligence agencies," and "coordinated amplification from accounts and networks." These phrases indicate skepticism about official explanations and a sense that information itself is contested. The emotion is moderately strong and serves to alert the reader to propaganda efforts and competing truth claims, encouraging critical judgment about competing narratives.

Shame and humiliation are implied by descriptions of students burning the national flag and replacing state symbols with pre-revolutionary emblems; these acts signal an intent to reject and disgrace the current regime’s symbols. The intensity is symbolic rather than personal, aimed at delegitimizing the state. This emotion nudges the reader to perceive the protesters as morally and historically repudiating the regime.

Hope and aspiration appear more subtly in calls for "territorial integrity, and free elections" and in the organization of student groups advocating secular governance. These statements carry a forward-looking optimism about political change. The hope is measured but present, functioning to present the protests not only as negative reaction but as striving for concrete alternatives, thereby inspiring readers who favor reform.

The text uses emotionally charged verbs and imagery rather than neutral descriptions to persuade. Choosing actions like "burned," "set fire," "transformed," and "chanted" makes events feel immediate and dramatic. Personal and bodily details about detainees—"sustained fatal injuries," "prevented autopsy," "tightly controlled burial"—bring suffering closer to the reader and seek to evoke empathy and outrage. Repetition of themes (multiple universities, repeated symbolic acts, ongoing repression) amplifies scale and seriousness, creating a sense of momentum and crisis. Contrasts are used: old symbols versus state symbols, mourning rituals turned into political acts, protesters versus Basij supporters, and state narratives versus activist reports; these comparisons make the conflict vivid and frame one side as oppressive and the other as morally driven. Cautious hedging—phrases like "alleged," "conflicting official and witness accounts," and references to "rights groups and activist sources"—introduce an appearance of balance while still communicating harm, which can increase credibility for readers attuned to evidentiary nuance. Overall, the word choices, repeated motifs, vivid actions, and contrasts work together to steer the reader toward sympathy with protesters, concern about repression, and attention to a deep political rupture.