Ali Shakouri-Rad’s Account of the January Protests and the Erosion of Political Moderation in Iran
Ali Shakouri-Rad, a reformist political activist and former member of Iran’s sixth parliament, offered a detailed and controversial critique of the state’s handling of the January protests.
In remarks that have circulated widely in recent days, Ali Shakouri-Rad, a reformist political activist and former member of Iran’s sixth parliament, offered a detailed and controversial critique of the state’s handling of the January protests, challenging official narratives and warning of deepening political and social rupture in Iran. The remarks appear to have been made in a closed or non-public setting, and it remains unclear whether Shakouri-Rad intended for his comments to be released or disseminated publicly.
In the recording, Shakouri-Rad framed the December-January protests as the predictable outcome of years of accumulated public grievances, emphasizing that large-scale unrest did not emerge suddenly or spontaneously. He pointed to persistent demonstrations by retirees, teachers, and workers as evidence that society had long been in a state of protest. Shakouri-Rad further suggested that the initial outbreak of demonstrations - beginning in the bazaar - appeared to reflect an attempt by security or intelligence bodies to manage or contain the unrest, an effort that ultimately failed as events rapidly escalated beyond their control.
According to Shakouri-Rad, state institutions were aware that mass protests were imminent and had anticipated social unrest. He suggested that the timing of the protests—coinciding with university closures and public holidays—indicated prior awareness by security or intelligence bodies. However, he argued that the scale of public participation far exceeded expectations, creating a situation that authorities were unable to manage.
Shakouri-Rad claimed that all political actors were surprised by the breadth of public mobilization, including opposition figures and state institutions alike. Citing assessments he attributed to security bodies, he stated that up to 1.5 million people may have participated nationwide. He argued that this level of participation fundamentally altered the dynamics of the protests and intensified the state’s response.
Central to Shakouri-Rad’s remarks was his rejection of the official narrative that attributed protest-related violence—such as the burning of mosques, religious sites, and public property—to foreign intelligence agencies or external opposition networks, including those linked to Reza Pahlavi. Shakouri-Rad stated explicitly that he does not believe these claims, adding that many Iranians similarly reject them.
Instead, Shakouri-Rad alleged that security institutions in Iran have historically injected violence into protest movements in order to justify harsh crackdowns. He described what he characterized as a long-standing method of repression in which violent acts—sometimes involving damage to religious symbols or the deaths of security personnel—are used to reframe protests as existential threats to the state. Shakouri-Rad further claimed that such practices have been discussed in academic and security-related writings within Iran, asserting that he had encountered published material describing “the killing of one’s own forces” as a tactic used to legitimize repression. He argued that, if accurate, this would represent a profound moral and institutional failure.
The former lawmaker also sharply criticized the response of President Masoud Pezeshkian, who publicly labeled protesters as “rioters” and echoed claims that foreign-backed actors were responsible for violence. Shakouri-Rad argued that Pezeshkian accepted and repeated the security forces’ narrative without sufficient scrutiny, despite the fact that many citizens did not believe this account because they were witnessing events firsthand in the streets. According to Shakouri-Rad, the public’s lived experience directly contradicted official claims, and the president should not have relied solely on security reports that large segments of society viewed as false. Shakouri-Rad said that by publicly endorsing this narrative, Pezeshkian failed to question how such incidents occurred under the supervision of state institutions and, in doing so, effectively eliminated what remained of the political “middle ground” in Iranian society.
According to Shakouri-Rad, the loss of a credible moderate force in Iran represents a serious crisis. He described the political center as a form of social capital, essential for de-escalation during periods of unrest. By aligning himself with the security establishment’s interpretation of events rather than public perception, Shakouri-Rad argued, Pezeshkian shifted from a potential mediator into an actor within a deeply polarized conflict.
Shakouri-Rad placed the January protests within a broader historical pattern, referencing earlier episodes such as the 1999 university dormitory attacks and the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. He argued that in multiple cases, official security narratives were later contradicted by eyewitness accounts, leaked evidence, or statements by state officials themselves.
He cited the killing of Ruhollah Ajamian, a Basij member during the 2022 protests in Karaj, as an example of how violent incidents were rapidly instrumentalized. Shakouri-Rad questioned how events unfolded, who initiated violence, and how investigations were conducted, noting the swift executions of Mohammad Mehdi Karami and Mohammad Hosseini, as well as the severe sentences imposed on other defendants, including Hamid Gharahassanlou and Farzaneh Gharahassanlou. He suggested these cases were used to instill fear and deter further protest.
A significant portion of Shakouri-Rad’s remarks focused on the age of those killed and detained, stating that many victims of the January crackdown were between 15 and 30 years old. He described this reality as a national disgrace more than four decades after the 1979 revolution, emphasizing that many of these young people were children of families who had once supported the Islamic Republic.
Shakouri-Rad warned that Iran is experiencing dangerous levels of social polarization, marked by mutual dehumanization between protesters and members of the Basij and security forces. He expressed concern that individuals with no prior record of violence are being drawn into brutal acts under ideological pressure, while others increasingly view violence against security personnel as justified. He described this dual radicalization as one of the gravest consequences of prolonged repression.
Addressing opposition monarchist slogans, Shakouri-Rad argued that support for Reza Pahlavi reflects political abandonment rather than genuine allegiance, stating that many protesters have turned to monarchist symbols not out of conviction, but because reformist and peaceful avenues for change have been systematically closed.
Following the circulation of the recording, Ali Shakouri-Rad was arrested. Iranian domestic media reported that the Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) detained him hours after he exited the hospital where he works. The arrest followed public calls by hardline lawmakers and pro-government figures demanding action against him over his remarks.
As of the time of writing, no formal charges have been publicly announced. Shakouri-Rad’s detention comes amid a broader pattern of arrests targeting reformist activists, raising renewed concerns about the criminalization of political speech, particularly when it challenges official narratives surrounding protest violence.
In the days preceding the arrest, conservative lawmaker Mehdi Koochakzadeh publicly accused Shakouri-Rad of spreading lies and endangering national security, calling for authorities to “deal with” him. The sequence of events—leaked remarks from an apparent closed setting, followed by political pressure and arrest—underscores the shrinking space for dissent and internal critique in Iran, even among former officials operating within the system.