Middle East
Iranian women: This is not just about hijab
“From the beginning of the revolution we were told that those in power shouldn’t be criticized, but if we had been allowed to criticize, we wouldn’t have so much embezzlement, theft and betrayal.”
These were the words of Azam Taleghani, who was among the most prominent individuals of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and being among the four women representatives of the first parliament after the Revolution, in one of her speeches right before her death in 2019. Azam Taleghani, who was imprisoned under the Shah regime and whose father was a quite influential cleric, has been saying about the parliamentary debates regarding the compulsory hijab “If the same obligation was not given on men, then this cannot be obligated on women either”. Quite interestingly, Taleghani never took off her dark veil called “chador” during her entire political career, or even after that. And her countless applications for presidential candidacy with her dark veil, has ended in the same way as it did with all other women: It was rejected by the Constitutional Council.
What do these women want?
43 years after the revolution made by Taleghani and many other women and men, against the imperialism and its inner collaborator the Shah regime, the Iranian women are once again on the streets at the forefront. This wave of pretests that began after Mahsa Amini was arrested in Tehran and died soon after in custody, is the largest wave of protests ever since the 1979 Revolution. Iranian people are taking on the streets in almost all provinces of the country. So, what are the demands from the streets, what do these women want, to what extent does the Iranian society support these protests and where does imperialism stand in the face of these protests? When the provocative reports from the west and the social media misinformation is combined with harsh internet restrictions, it gets very hard to reach any information from the region. Restrictions and misinformation have reduced the demands of the street protesters down to the issue of compulsory hijab practices.

It is seen that some women do not wear hijab on the streets of Tehran after the protests. (December 5, 2022). PHOTO: Fatemeh Bahrami/AA
‘The main problem is The Constitution’
However, the Iranian women tell that the compulsory hijab practices, that were stereotyped with the Iranian women, have already relaxed in most regions before the protests. According to them hijab is not a problem on its own. A small textile business owner Vida S. (39) stated that the restrictions were mostly ignored before the protests, while driving or in public places such as cafes: “Especially after the protests, most women go out in the streets with their hair unveiled.”
A housewife Sara N. (38) also states that the compulsory hijab does not affect the social life deeply, on its own. However, she thinks that women should be free to wear the outfit they desire, just as men do. A schoolteacher from Tabriz Nasrin N. (42) stated the following on the compulsory hijab, which she defined as a formality and as an artificial practice: “The main problem that affects the social life, are the practices that are caused by the Sharia Law. For example, men can “divorce” their wives as they wish, after paying a one-time allowance called mahr. The same does not apply for women. A woman could not “divorce” her husband because she did not love him. She has to prove there is a heavy misconduct of the man, which allows the woman to get a divorce, such as domestic violence or drug abuse. And even if she gets the divorce, she could not get the child’s custody after the age of 7, if the man is still not keeping the same manners mentioned above. A woman cannot get a passport without her husband’s or her father’s permission. She cannot get an equal share of the inheritance as her male siblings. They cannot be judges, or even witnesses at homicide cases. And even at other trials, a female witness is given half credibility of a male witness.”

Sara (left), Seher (upper right) and Nesrin (lower right)
‘The conditions were already there, hijab just ignited the fire’
Vida tells that the main problem that took all these people to the streets, were economic. Nasrin says “Iranian currency is constantly losing value. Our purchasing power has dropped significantly, people are struggling to survive. The hijab just ignited the protests, in such state of turmoil. It is not just the women, but everyone is taking on the streets. This is a revolutionary movement”. And when I asked one of my Iranian friends, who has not taken off her veil even in Turkiye and whom I know very closely, whether these protests were actually because of hijab or not, she responded “Did you join the Gezi Park protests in 2013 because of just trees?”.
Sahar, whose entire youth was spent in Tehran and was spent with “the fear of going to hell because of her hair”, says hijab is also one of the main issues. Sahar speaks of the difficulties she had 30 years ago when she studies arts in university: “A group of theology students would come to us and call us ‘degenerates’. I was subjected to a lot of discrimination as a woman playing a music instrument. I was not allowed to play in front of men, I needed a license for concerts. Or some of our song lyrics were censored because it had sexual meanings, even if these songs belonged to a famous Islamic cleric…”
‘Women are pushed into two different lifestyles’
Sahar says that women are subjected to severe discrimination because they were only perceived sexually and are pushed into having two different lifestyles one out in the streets, and one at home. Sahar says that women are being treated as “second class citizens”: “Laws are heavily on men’s favor in marriages, in business and in inheritance. However in all developed and developing countries, law are supposed to protect women and children. It is exactly the opposite in Iran. We wish for a new constitution in which we are represented as equals with men; we demand freedom of speech, freedom to criticize and to have universal suffrage in elections that are made free and fair.”
Claiming that religion and politics should be separated, Vida describes her demands as follows: “I do not want to be seen or treated as a terrorist. We want better life conditions as we deserve as the Iranian people”. Sara also has no other expectations other than “a normal life which men and women have same rights”. The obstetrician Delara N. (53) also says she wants live a “normal life”. For her, the way to do this is to “give women all the rights they deserve in social, political and private life that which would be all aspects of a human life”.
‘The fear of the imperialists…’
We asked them about the support messages for the protests in Iran, from the USA and EU. All women we have spoken to have a clear stance against the US and EU. Vida says “The intellect and the culture of the Iranian people are the reason for the imperialist powers’ fears. That is why there is no chance that they would support our development as a nation. We would stay restricted until this problem is resolved and that is exactly what the imperialists want, they do not wish an Iran which has gotten over its internal problems. Therefore, the US and Europe also wants the current government to stay in power, for their own benefits. That is because the internal problems will stay as long as the government stays in power”.
Sara highlights that the globalization has severely damaged a country’s will to take its own decisions not only in Iran but in all countries, and that the Western colonialism is no more legitimized through war but through “problems” such as race or sectarianism, while adding that: “The West does not see any benefits from the consequences of these protests. If they ever knew they would benefit from this, they would put out a much more decisive intervention”.
And according to Nasrin, who said the US and Europe is not content with these protests since they do not desire a peaceful Middle East, the messages of support from the West are just a façade and not quite sincere: “They do not want to subject Iranians. We have already seen the examples of their subjugations from Iraq and Afghanistan”.

Vida says “The intellect and the culture of the Iranian people are the reason for the imperialist powers’ fears.”
The power behind these protests
All the demands that rise out of Iran is neither unexpected when we think about the women influence in universities, academia and the social life despite all the obstacles, nor is it unexpected to find the “great powers” looking for an opportunity whenever there is turmoil in our region … Despite all this, the demands of equality from women and economic demands from the public are balancing out with being an instrument to imperialism.
Just like Taleghani was not a “servant to the US” or a “Western lapdog” or a “traitor”, nether are Sahar, Sara or Vida who were forced to take on streets for the sake of having a normal life. The things that happened, show that those who are benefitting from the Sharia Law, need to finally listen to the women that have suffered from it.
The economic crisis that is deepening by each day and enslaving the population to severe poverty under heavy sanctions from the West, stands as one of the bigger factors behind the protests in Iran. The Iranians know very well about the conditions for these bursts, during which great changes took place. The Iranian clergy was not able to stand against the Shah before its own interests were actually threatened with a land reform and before the merchants connected to the clergy were threatened by the global industries. And this was during when the most radical “reforms” were taking place, including the ban on hijab. The clergy only remembered its authority of inspecting the laws according to the Sharia Law in the land reforms of 1963, since when they first got this right in the first constitution of Iran in 1906 constitution.
Nature will take its course
So, it is “in accordance with the usual situation” when a class a group or an individual to raise their voices when their economic assurances are taken away and when they are suffering through hardships and difficulties. Looking for a “foreign intervention” in such situations, is basically as wrong as rowing against the tide. No country, and especially not the United States, would not export any “revolutions” or “reforms” to Iran, as easy as they did to Arab countries. That is because Iran is one of the two regional powers that has strong state traditions and great cultural accumulations, whose society relies on the concept of anti-imperialism. The Iranian government either finds a new course for this river tide, or “drains the entire river” for now, which will flow even stronger in the next couple years. But sooner or later, that river has to flow towards its riverbed.
Middle East
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Middle East
Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Middle East
Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
