Iran is experiencing deep political divisions that extend beyond typical factional disputes, now challenging the legitimacy of decision-making, institutional authority, and control over the country’s official narrative. Recent events highlight these tensions across multiple state institutions.

In one incident, portraits of former President Hassan Rouhani and former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif were burned during a nighttime gathering. This act of political opposition occurred alongside calls from senior officials and religious figures for calm and unity. President Masoud Pezeshkian has urged government institutions to activate communication networks nationwide, emphasizing unity as a central priority. However, these appeals contrast with ongoing disputes within the political establishment.

A significant conflict has emerged between state media outlets. The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) responded to criticism from the state-run newspaper *Iran*, which accused IRIB of censoring parts of President Pezeshkian’s remarks and those of the judiciary chief, as well as downplaying the foreign minister’s interviews with international media. IRIB defended its coverage, stating it had aired hundreds of reports and interviews related to the foreign minister and rejected claims of bias or censorship. The broadcaster argued that editorial decisions do not equate to deliberate distortion, but the dispute reveals broader disagreements over media neutrality and representation.

Parliament is also at the center of controversy. A newly formed "Parliament Coordination Council," led by Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has faced criticism for excluding hundreds of lawmakers from decision-making. Some officials argue the council lacks legal basis and concentrates authority in the hands of a few, undermining parliamentary transparency. Virtual sessions have been held without live broadcasts or press access, with recordings delayed by 24 hours, further fueling concerns about accountability.

The government’s creation of a new cyberspace governance body has drawn sharp criticism from conservative factions. President Pezeshkian established the "Special Headquarters for the Organization and Steering of the Country’s Cyberspace," appointing Mohammad Reza Aref as its head. Critics, including the hardline newspaper *Kayhan*, argue the move bypasses existing institutions like the Supreme Council of Cyberspace and the judiciary, creating parallel authority. Some lawmakers and academics have questioned the need for the new body, suggesting it undermines established legal frameworks.

*Kayhan* has framed the political conflict as a struggle between "steadfastness in principles" and "deviation," portraying rivals not as legitimate opponents but as forces acting outside accepted norms. This rhetoric narrows the space for compromise and intensifies divisions within the ruling establishment.

While calls for unity continue from the government, state media, and religious leaders, the repeated disputes over media coverage, parliamentary procedures, street-level political actions, and institutional authority suggest that cohesion remains a major challenge rather than an established reality. The impact of these divisions on governance, public trust, and daily life is becoming increasingly visible.

irannewswire.org, (iran), (kayhan)

This article provides no actionable help to a normal reader. It describes political divisions and institutional conflicts in Iran but offers no clear steps, choices, or tools for someone to use. There are no instructions on how to navigate these tensions, no guidance on engaging with Iranian institutions, and no resources for verifying information or protecting oneself. The only implied action—waiting for further developments—is passive and does nothing to empower the reader. The article does not link to official sources, explain how to report concerns, or provide contact information for embassies or international organizations. Without these, the reader is left with no practical way to act.

The educational depth is limited. While the article explains the surface-level conflicts—such as disputes between state media, parliamentary procedures, and the creation of a new cyberspace body—it remains superficial. It does not explore why these divisions exist beyond vague references to "principles" and "deviation." The article does not explain how media censorship works in practice, how parliamentary decision-making typically functions in Iran, or what the legal basis for the new cyberspace body might be. The mention of a "Parliament Coordination Council" is presented without context about how such bodies are usually formed or why this one is controversial. The numbers, such as the exclusion of "hundreds of lawmakers," are not analyzed to explain their significance or how they compare to past parliamentary practices. The article also does not clarify how these disputes might affect ordinary citizens or what mechanisms exist for public accountability.

The personal relevance is narrow. The article affects Iranians directly, particularly those who engage with state institutions, media, or political processes. However, it does not explain how these groups might be impacted differently or what steps they could take to protect their interests. For most readers outside Iran, the relevance is indirect: the divisions may influence Iran’s foreign policy or regional stability, but the article does not connect this to the reader’s own life or decisions. It does not address how someone might verify information from Iranian sources, how to assess the credibility of state media, or what to do if they encounter conflicting narratives. The lack of practical connection makes the issue feel distant and abstract for most readers.

The public service function is minimal. The article raises awareness of political tensions but does not provide warnings, safety guidance, or emergency information. It does not explain how to recognize misinformation, how to report concerns to authorities, or what to do if caught in political unrest. The article functions as a news report rather than a public service resource , offering no tools to help readers act responsibly or protect themselves. It does not even clarify whether these divisions pose immediate risks to public safety or how citizens might prepare for potential disruptions.

The practical advice is nonexistent. While the article mentions calls for unity from political and religious leaders, it does not suggest how a reader might support or engage with these efforts . There are no tips on how to stay informed about political developments, how to evaluate the credibility of different media outlets, or how to engage with local representatives. The guidance is so vague that it is effectively useless. For example, the article notes that virtual parliamentary sessions are delayed by 24 hours, but it does not explain why this matters or what a concerned citizen might do about it.

The long-term impact is unclear. The article focuses on immediate disputes and their potential consequences but does not help readers plan ahead. It does not explain what signs to watch for in future political developments, how to evaluate the trustworthiness of state institutions, or what steps to take if similar conflicts arise. The lack of forward-looking guidance means the reader gains no lasting benefit. The article does little to help someone understand how to navigate future political tensions or advocate for transparency and accountability.

The emotional and psychological impact leans toward alarm without empowerment. The article describes high-stakes political conflicts, which may leave readers feeling anxious about Iran’s stability. However, it offers no constructive way to respond beyond passive observation. For Iranians, the focus on institutional disputes may create cynicism about governance, but there is no guidance on how to process these feelings or take action if faced with political challenges. The tone is more alarming than empowering, as it highlights risks without providing solutions.

The language avoids overt clickbait, though the framing emphasizes conflict and controversy to maintain interest. Phrases like "challenging the legitimacy of decision-making" and "struggle between steadfastness in principles and deviation" are dramatic but do not add substance. The article relies on official statements and procedural details to sustain engagement, but these are presented without deeper analysis or practical context.

The biggest missed opportunity is failing to explain how ordinary people can navigate this political environment. While the article presents a problem—deep divisions within Iran’s institutions—it offers no tools to address it. It could have included basic steps for verifying information, evaluating media credibility, or engaging with local representatives. Instead, the reader is left with a story and no way to act on it.

If you are concerned about political instability or want to understand how similar situations might affect you, here are some universal steps you can take. These principles apply regardless of where you live and can help you stay informed and prepared.

Start by verifying information through multiple sources. In environments where state media or political narratives may be contested, rely on independent news outlets, international organizations, or trusted local contacts for balanced perspectives. Avoid relying on a single source, as this can lead to misunderstandings or misinformation. Cross-check facts and look for patterns in reporting to identify biases or inconsistencies.

If you engage with political institutions, understand their roles and limitations. Research how decisions are made in your country’s government, media, or legal systems. This knowledge can help you assess whether actions taken by these institutions are typical or unusual. For example, if virtual parliamentary sessions are delayed, consider whether this is a standard practice or a sign of deeper issues. Understanding these processes can help you evaluate the credibility of official statements and identify potential risks.

Stay informed about political developments in your region. Follow updates from reputable sources, such as government websites, nonpartisan organizations , or trusted news outlets. These sources can provide context about emerging tensions, changes in leadership, or shifts in policy that may affect your community. Avoid relying on social media or partisan sources for this information, as misinformation is common.

Evaluate the credibility of media outlets. If state-run media is accused of censorship or bias, compare its coverage with that of independent or international sources. Look for transparency in reporting, such as clear sourcing and corrections of errors. If a platform consistently omits key details or presents information in a one-sided manner, consider whether it is a reliable source for understanding political developments.

Engage with your community to promote transparency and accountability. Encourage others to seek out diverse perspectives and verify information before sharing it. If you notice patterns of misinformation or censorship, consider reporting it to relevant authorities or advocacy groups. Collective action can be more effective than individual efforts, especially in holding institutions accountable.

Prepare for potential disruptions. Political instability can lead to unexpected challenges, such as restricted access to information, changes in government services, or public unrest. Have a contingency plan in place, such as alternative sources of news, emergency contacts, or backup communication methods. Staying adaptable can help you navigate uncertainty more effectively.

Finally, remain calm and constructive. Political divisions can create anxiety, but focusing on practical steps can help you feel more in control. If you encounter conflicting narratives, take the time to understand the underlying issues rather than reacting impulsively. By staying informed and proactive, you can better assess risks and make decisions that align with your values and safety.

The text says "portraits of former President Hassan Rouhani and former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif were burned during a nighttime gathering." This makes the act sound secret and scary. The word "nighttime" adds extra fear. It helps people who dislike Rouhani and Zarif by making their opponents look sneaky. The words hide that burning portraits can be a protest, not just a bad act. It makes readers think the act is worse than it might be.

The text calls the new cyberspace body a "parallel authority." This word makes it sound like the body is bad and sneaky. It helps people who oppose the president by making his idea seem wrong. The words hide that new groups can be normal and needed. It makes readers think the body is only meant to take power, not help.

The text says *Kayhan* "portraying rivals not as legitimate opponents but as forces acting outside accepted norms." This changes what the rivals really think. It makes them look like they break rules on purpose. It helps *Kayhan* by making its enemies seem worse. The words hide that rivals might just have different ideas. It stops readers from seeing the other side as fair.

The text says the Parliament Coordination Council "lacks legal basis and concentrates authority in the hands of a few." This makes the council sound unfair and sneaky. It helps people who want more democracy by making the council look bad. The words hide that some groups can be useful even if not perfect. It makes readers think the council is only about power, not work.

The text says IRIB "rejected claims of bias or censorship." The word "rejected" makes it sound like IRIB is sure it is right. It helps IRIB by making its side seem strong. The words hide that bias can be hard to see. It makes readers think IRIB is fair without proof.

The text says "virtual sessions have been held without live broadcasts or press access, with recordings delayed by 24 hours." This makes the sessions sound secret and unfair. It helps people who want transparency by making the government look bad. The words hide that delays can happen for good reasons. It makes readers think the government is hiding things on purpose.

The text says President Pezeshkian "emphasizing unity as a central priority." This makes him sound like he wants peace. It helps his image by making him look good. The words hide that unity can be hard to do. It makes readers think he is the only one trying to fix problems.

The text calls the act of burning portraits "political opposition." This makes the act sound normal and fair. It hides that burning portraits can be seen as very rude or violent. It helps those who did it by making their act seem less bad. It makes readers think the act is just a protest, not a strong attack.

The text says *Kayhan* frames the conflict as "steadfastness in principles" and "deviation." This changes what the other side really thinks. It turns different ideas into bad behavior. It helps *Kayhan* by making its enemies look wrong. The words hide that both sides might have good points. It stops readers from seeing the other side fairly.

The text says the new cyberspace body was created by the president. This hides that other groups might have helped or agreed. It helps people who oppose the president by making him look like he acts alone. The words make the body seem like only his idea. It makes readers think the president is taking too much power.

The text says IRIB "aired hundreds of reports and interviews related to the foreign minister." This big number makes IRIB sound fair. It hides that some reports might be short or not important. It helps IRIB by showing it does a lot. It makes readers think IRIB is balanced without checking.

The text says critics argue the new cyberspace body "undermines established legal frameworks." This makes the body sound dangerous. It helps critics by making the body look bad. The words hide that new groups can work with old ones. It stops readers from seeing the body as helpful.

The text says President Pezeshkian "urged government institutions to activate communication networks nationwide." This makes him sound like he wants to fix problems. It helps his image by making him look active. The words hide that communication can be hard to control. It makes readers think he is the only one trying to help.

The text uses passive voice in "recordings delayed by 24 hours were held." This hides who made the delay. No one says if it was on purpose or by accident. It helps the government by making the delay seem normal. It makes readers think the delay is not important.

The text picks facts to help one side. When it talks about media disputes, it only says bad things about IRIB. When it talks about unity calls, it only says good things about the president’s side. This makes readers think one side is right and the other wrong. It hides that both sides have good points. It makes the story one-sided.

The input text conveys a range of emotions, both overt and subtle, that shape how the reader perceives Iran’s political divisions. The most prominent emotion is **concern**, which appears throughout the text in descriptions of institutional conflicts, media disputes, and governance challenges. Words like "controversy," "criticism," "disputes," and "sharp criticism" signal unease about the stability of Iran’s political system. The phrase "undermining parliamentary transparency" and the mention of virtual sessions being held "without live broadcasts or press access" amplify this concern by suggesting secrecy and a lack of accountability. The purpose of this emotion is to highlight the gravity of the situation, making the reader worry about the potential consequences of these divisions for Iran’s governance and public trust. By emphasizing these tensions, the text encourages the reader to view the conflicts as serious and destabilizing rather than routine political disagreements.

Another key emotion is **distrust**, which emerges in the descriptions of state media and institutional actions. The text notes that IRIB "rejected claims of bias or censorship," but this defense is framed in a way that makes it sound unconvincing. The phrase "editorial decisions do not equate to deliberate distortion" is presented as IRIB’s argument, but the surrounding context—such as accusations of censoring the president’s remarks and downplaying interviews—undermines its credibility. Similarly, the criticism of the Parliament Coordination Council as lacking "legal basis" and concentrating "authority in the hands of a few" reinforces the idea that institutions cannot be trusted to act fairly or transparently. This distrust is further heightened by the description of *Kayhan*’s rhetoric, which portrays political rivals as "forces acting outside accepted norms." The purpose of this emotion is to make the reader question whether Iran’s institutions are acting in the public’s best interest, steering them toward skepticism about the motives of those in power.

**Frustration** is also evident, particularly in the portrayal of political opposition and institutional resistance. The burning of portraits of Rouhani and Zarif is described as an "act of political opposition," but the word "burning" carries a strong emotional weight, suggesting anger or defiance. The text does not explicitly label this emotion, but the act itself implies a sense of grievance or dissatisfaction with the former leadership. Similarly, the criticism of the new cyberspace body as creating "parallel authority" and bypassing established institutions conveys frustration among conservative factions. The phrase "undermines established legal frameworks" suggests that these critics feel ignored or sidelined by the government’s actions. This emotion serves to highlight the intensity of the divisions, making the reader feel the depth of the conflict and the difficulty of achieving compromise.

A contrasting emotion is **hope**, which appears in the calls for unity from President Pezeshkian and other leaders. Phrases like "emphasizing unity as a central priority" and "urged government institutions to activate communication networks nationwide" suggest a desire for cohesion and stability. However, this hope is tempered by the surrounding context of conflict, making it feel fragile or even naive. The purpose of this emotion is to create a sense of possibility, encouraging the reader to believe that resolution is still achievable despite the current tensions. By presenting unity as a goal, the text subtly suggests that the reader should root for reconciliation, even if the path forward is unclear.

The text also employs **alarm** to heighten the reader’s sense of urgency. Descriptions of the new cyberspace body as a move that "bypasses existing institutions" and creates "parallel authority" are designed to sound dangerous, as if the government is overstepping its bounds. The mention of *Kayhan* framing the conflict as a struggle between "steadfastness in principles" and "deviation" adds to this alarm by portraying the divisions as existential, with one side cast as morally superior and the other as a threat. This emotional tool is used to make readers feel that the stakes are high, pushing them to view the situation as a crisis rather than a manageable dispute. The alarm is further reinforced by the lack of resolution in the text—conflicts are described, but no clear path to unity is offered, leaving the reader with a sense of unresolved tension.

The writer uses several techniques to amplify these emotions and guide the reader’s reaction. One key tool is **contrast**, which is used repeatedly to highlight divisions. For example , the calls for unity from Pezeshkian are contrasted with the ongoing disputes in state media and parliament, making the conflicts feel more pronounced. This contrast creates a sense of imbalance, as if the positive appeals for cohesion are being drowned out by the negative actions of institutions and factions. Another technique is **selective framing**, where certain actions are presented in a way that emphasizes their emotional impact. The burning of portraits is described as a "nighttime gathering," which makes it sound secretive and ominous, while the criticism of the Parliament Coordination Council focuses on its lack of "legal basis," making it seem illegitimate. These choices steer the reader toward viewing the actions of political opponents as suspicious or wrong.

The text also uses **repetition** subtly to reinforce key emotions. Words like "controversy," "criticism," and "dispute" appear multiple times, creating a rhythm that underscores the ongoing nature of the conflicts. This repetition makes the divisions feel pervasive and inescapable , deepening the reader ’s sense of concern. Additionally, the text employs **loaded language**—words or phrases that carry strong emotional connotations—to shape the reader’s perception. For example, describing the new cyberspace body as creating "parallel authority” makes it sound like a shadowy or illegitimate power grab, while calling the Parliament Coordination Council “a few” suggests elitism and exclusion . These choices are not neutral; they are designed to evoke specific emotional responses and guide the reader toward a particular interpretation of events.

The emotional impact of these techniques is to persuade the reader that Iran’s political divisions are deep, destabilizing, and potentially dangerous. The concern and alarm created by the text make the reader more likely to view the situation as a crisis, while the distrust and frustration encourage skepticism about the motives of those in power. Even the fleeting hope for unity serves a purpose—it makes the reader wish for resolution, but the surrounding context ensures that this hope feels fragile. By shaping the reader’s emotions , the text steers them toward seeing the conflicts as serious and unresolved, rather than as temporary or manageable. This emotional framing is likely intended to make readers more attentive to future developments and more critical of the actors involved.