From Protest to Political Rupture: Calls for Ali Khamenei’s Removal Amid Competing Death Toll Narratives
The relative calm observed in many cities does not indicate political resolution; rather, it reflects the state’s reassertion of control.
After nearly a month of unrest, Iran has entered a phase marked less by visible street mobilization than by post-protest consolidation of power, sustained repression, and an intensified struggle over narrative and accountability. The relative calm observed in many cities does not indicate political resolution; rather, it reflects the state’s reassertion of control through mass arrests, prolonged communication shutdowns, judicial pressure, and systematic intimidation of families, journalists, and civil society actors.
A central feature of this phase has been the emergence of competing and deeply divergent casualty narratives. Official bodies affiliated with the Iranian government, including the National Security Council, have stated that 3,117 people were killed during the peak days of violence on January 8–9. According to this account, 2,427 of those killed were described as “innocent civilians” or “security and order-protecting forces,” while the identities and circumstances surrounding 690 additional deaths were left unspecified. Senior officials—including the President and the Supreme Leader—have framed the violence as the result of organized unrest, foreign-backed “terrorism,” and an attempted destabilization of the state.
In contrast, independent human rights organizations have documented a substantially higher toll while stressing the limits imposed by the near-total information blackout. According to the most recent cumulative data published by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which works to confirm its counts via at least one credible source:
5,002 deaths have been individually confirmed
9,787 additional death cases remain under review
26,852 arrests have been documented nationwide
7,391 individuals have sustained severe injuries
192 cases of forced confessions have been broadcast by state media
HRANA emphasizes that these figures represent minimum verified counts, not final totals. Its case-by-case documentation methodology, cross-verification of sources, and transparent categorization have led many observers to regard HRANA’s data as more methodologically credible than official aggregate figures released without supporting detail. The continued communications blackout suggests that the true scale of casualties and detentions may only emerge later.
At the same time, Iran Human Rights decided to halt its ongoing effort to publish death tolls because the scale of the killings and severe communication restrictions have made it impossible to meet its evidentiary standards, which require multilayer verification and confirmation by at least two independent sources. In its most recent statistical report, the organization confirmed at least 3,428 killed protesters, while stressing that this figure likely falls well below the true death toll.
Alongside efforts to fix a definitive death toll, the authorities have intensified post-event repression. Security-linked media outlets report the arrest of hundreds of alleged protest “leaders” across multiple provinces. State television and affiliated platforms have simultaneously released large volumes of televised “confessions,” a practice long criticized by rights groups as a violation of due process and human dignity. These broadcasts function less as judicial evidence than as tools of deterrence, intimidation, and narrative control.
The prolonged nationwide internet shutdown—now entering its third consecutive week—has become a defining element of this phase. Senior officials have offered no clear timetable for full restoration, instead indicating that any return of access will be partial, controlled, and conditional. Beyond restricting reporting and verification, the shutdown has imposed significant economic, social, and psychological costs, deepening public mistrust and isolation.
Against this backdrop, internal political and moral dissent has become increasingly explicit. A group of Iranian political and cultural figures identifying themselves as advocates of political transition (“گذارطلب”) issued an open letter addressed to the public that explicitly calls for the resignation or removal of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The letter condemns what it describes as the “brutal mass killing” of protesters and argues that lifelong, absolute rule has locked the country into recurring cycles of repression, bloodshed, and institutional failure.
Crucially, the signatories frame their demand not as an appeal for foreign intervention or disorder, but as a proposal for a structured political exit from the crisis. They outline a roadmap centered on:
Formation of a broad national alternative
A public referendum
Establishment of a constituent assembly
Drafting of a new constitution
In doing so, the letter represents one of the most direct challenges to Ali Khamenei’s leadership to emerge from within Iran’s political and intellectual sphere in recent years, elevating the protest crisis from a question of repression to one of systemic legitimacy.
Additional dissent has emerged from within the religious establishment. The Association of Seminary Teachers and Researchers in Qom has urged authorities to treat detainees with clemency and restraint, explicitly stating that “violence is not an answer to violence.” The group has questioned whether responsibility for the crisis lies with angry protesters—or with those who have persistently resisted meaningful reform in governance.
Parallel calls for accountability have also gained traction. Political analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi has publicly proposed the formation of an independent United Nations fact-finding committee to investigate the killings, identify victims, and document responsibility. His proposal reflects a growing recognition among Iranian commentators that domestic investigative mechanisms lack credibility, and that international oversight may be the only remaining avenue for truth-seeking and accountability.
The UN Human Rights Council convened on Friday to consider the crackdown in Iran and debate next steps. Volker Türk, the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN, addressed the crackdown, stating “Peaceful protestors were reportedly killed in the streets and in residential areas, including universities and medical facilities. Video evidence appears to show hundreds of bodies in morgues, with fatal injuries to the head and chest. Hundreds of security personnel were reportedly also killed…And in a chilling development, the Chief of the Judiciary said earlier this week that their work had just started, and that there would be no leniency for those detained.” Türk asserted that even if Iranian authorities claims of rioting, infiltration and terrorism were true, “None of this would justify the resort to excessive, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, or reduce the Government’s obligations to ensure due process and transparent investigations.” Türk called for a halt of repression, to abstain from punitive sentences, a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and an end to the internet blackout.
Many states voiced concern over the human rights situation and support for the extension of the mandate of the UN Fact-Finding mission first established in the wake of the 2022 protests, along with the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was a major subject of debate during the council’s session. Some others more closely aligned with Iran, or part of the non-aligned movement, voiced concern about the proposal and suggested the push for accountability was biased, violated sovereignty and risks paving the way for external intervention.
Ultimately, the council passed a resolution extending the mandates of the human rights monitors and calling on Iran to move into compliance with its international rights obligations. The vote total was 25 states in favor, 7 against (China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan and Vietnam) and 14 abstentions.
Taken together, these developments indicate that Iran is not moving toward resolution but toward a reconfiguration of repression. Street violence has given way to carceral control, information isolation, and narrative enforcement, even as independent documentation continues to expand and internal political demands intensify. The effort to stabilize the situation through official casualty figures and security dominance now coincides with a far more consequential rupture: open calls for the removal of the Supreme Leader himself.