The recent impeachment of Abdolnasser Hemmati and the forced resignation of Mohammad Javad Zarif mark a significant escalation in the hardliners’ campaign against President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration. Now, a new development—a letter signed by 209 members of Parliament demanding the enforcement of the controversial Hijab and Chastity Law—further underscores this growing pressure. While officially framed as a response to cultural concerns, the letter is widely perceived as another calculated effort to tighten control over Pezeshkian’s government.
The passage of the Hijab and Chastity Law has intensified debates across Iran. The law, consisting of 74 articles, mandates strict enforcement of hijab compliance in both public and private spheres. It has faced widespread criticism from legal experts, political figures, activists, and the general public for infringing on individual freedoms, prioritizing ideology over pressing economic concerns, and risking further societal division.
The controversy surrounding the hijab law is deeply intertwined with the broader struggle for women’s rights in Iran. The Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which emerged in September 2022, was ignited by the tragic killing of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman who died in police custody after being arrested by the morality police for allegedly violating Iran’s strict dress code. Her death sparked nationwide protests, shaking the foundations of the Iranian political system and intensifying calls for greater personal freedoms and government accountability. The movement saw widespread participation from women, students, and activists, leading to an unprecedented challenge to the state’s control over social and cultural policies. In the wake of these protests, the Iranian government has sought to reassert its authority through increased surveillance, harsher penalties, and renewed legislative measures like the Hijab and Chastity Law.
During a parliamentary session on March 4, MP Amir Hossein Bankipour addressed the chamber, framing the impeachment and resignation of key officials as victories against “illegal appointments and flawed economic policies.” He further emphasized that Parliament was responding to “the cultural demands of the people” by urging immediate enforcement of the Hijab and Chastity Law.
The letter, addressed to Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, presents the hijab issue as a matter of national security, alleging that foreign influences—including “Zionist regimes and Western media networks”—are fueling “moral corruption” in Iran. The signatories argue that failing to enforce the law would embolden those seeking to dismantle Iran’s cultural fabric.
Observers interpret this move as part of a broader hardline strategy to weaken Pezeshkian’s government. The removal of Hemmati and Zarif—both seen as moderate or pragmatic figures—has now given way to an intensified focus on cultural and social policies as a means of exerting control. The renewed push for the Hijab and Chastity Law serves as a convenient instrument in this power struggle.
A parliamentary source speaking to Khabar Online noted that “attacks on Pezeshkian’s government are being orchestrated on multiple fronts—one day it’s economic leadership, another day it’s cultural policies, and tomorrow it will be another minister’s turn.” This ongoing campaign suggests a deliberate effort to keep the government on the defensive and obstruct any reform efforts that might challenge hardliner dominance. Complicating the issue, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) had previously put enforcement of the Hijab and Chastity Law on hold, triggering backlash from hardliners. In response, conservative factions have launched media campaigns and parliamentary maneuvers to contest the SNSC’s authority on the matter.
Saeed Jalili, an influential hardliner and SNSC member, publicly challenged the council’s decision, claiming that “no such resolution exists” to halt the law’s enforcement. His allies in Parliament and conservative activist circles have echoed this stance, portraying the delay as an affront to the legislative process.
However, Speaker Ghalibaf appeared to validate the SNSC’s authority when, on February 3, he stated publicly that “if the Supreme National Security Council determines that a law’s enforcement could lead to tension, it has the authority to suspend it.” This directly contradicts the claims of hardliners advocating for immediate implementation. MP Mehrdad Goodarzvand Chigini of Rudbar reinforced this position, citing Article 176 of the Constitution to emphasize that SNSC decisions take precedence over parliamentary rulings in matters of national security. He urged his colleagues to uphold the integrity of Parliament by avoiding unconstitutional demands.
According to ILNA, Goodarzvand Chigini criticized MPs for acting on misinformation, stating, “Some representatives wrongly concluded that the SNSC had no ruling on the hijab issue based on unverified reports.” He further called on Speaker Ghalibaf to address concerns from all factions and prevent Parliament from becoming a battleground for political infighting.
The intensifying hardliner push for the hijab law suggests a broader strategy to weaken Pezeshkian’s administration by creating a multi-front challenge. The current battle over this law may foreshadow more aggressive efforts to paralyze the government’s policymaking, particularly as future elections approach.
Meanwhile, Pezeshkian himself has expressed skepticism about the feasibility of enforcing the law. In a televised interview last December, he stated, “As an executive body, we face many unanswered questions about the feasibility of implementing this law. We must ensure that any policy we enforce strengthens societal unity rather than deepening divisions.” He criticized aspects of the law, including fines imposed on ride-share drivers for their passengers’ attire, warning that such measures would exacerbate public grievances.
His cautious stance contrasts sharply with that of judiciary chief Gholamhosseini Mohseni Ejei, who recently insisted that “the law must be implemented without hesitation.” During a parliamentary session, Ejei remarked that “any enacted law must be upheld, even if modifications or clarifications are later deemed necessary.”
The hardliner campaign against Pezeshkian’s government appears to be escalating, using both legislative and public opinion tactics to pressure the administration. By reviving the hijab debate at a time when economic concerns dominate public discourse, conservatives seem intent on diverting attention while simultaneously consolidating their influence.
The law has also sparked significant public dissent. The hashtag “ابلاغ نکن” (“Do not enforce”) has gained traction on Iranian social media, with many urging Pezeshkian to refuse to implement the law. Critics argue that enforcing the law could alienate the youth, deepen societal fractures, and overshadow pressing economic concerns. Legal experts and activists have warned of its far-reaching implications, with some describing it as a “grotesque display of authoritarianism.”
Whether Pezeshkian can navigate this challenge without making significant concessions remains to be seen. However, one thing is certain: the struggle over Iran’s political and cultural future is far from over.