In a rare and highly significant break from Iran’s tightly controlled political discourse, Mohammad Taqi Akbar-Nejad, a senior reformist cleric, has launched a stinging critique of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the country’s ruling establishment. This development reflects mounting frustration among religious and intellectual elites amidst the worsening economic crisis and expanding disconnect between Iran’s leadership and its people.
Akbar-Nejad’s remarks, widely shared through independent media, target the ideologically driven policies that have defined the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. He pointedly criticized the regime’s reliance on anti-Western and anti-Israel rhetoric, stating, “Since the revolution, we have heard the word ‘enemy’ more than any other word.” This encapsulates a regime narrative that, for over four decades, has used external threats to divert public attention from internal challenges.
The cleric further addressed the Supreme Leader’s public statements, charging that Khamenei “speaks as if he is unaware of the situation and knows he is in Iran.” This references the country’s ongoing economic turmoil, marked by soaring inflation, plummeting currency value, and pervasive unemployment. The Iranian economy has steadily deteriorated, particularly since the United States reinstated sanctions following its 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Public frustration has grown as governmental promises of economic revival have proved hollow, and daily life for average Iranians has become increasingly challenging.
Perhaps the most telling part of Akbar-Nejad’s critique was his indictment of the regime’s declining popular legitimacy. He argued that “the people have abandoned you,” suggesting that Iranians now find more credibility in outside voices, even those of perceived adversaries such as Israel’s leadership, than in their own rulers. While it is difficult to verify such claims in a tightly surveilled state, reports from inside Iran corroborate widespread public disillusionment, particularly among youth.
Akbar-Nejad’s condemnation extended beyond economic failures to include the regime’s broader regional policies. He alluded to the public’s muted opposition or even tacit support for hardline Western leaders, observing that some Iranians welcomed Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, hoping for external pressure that might prompt reform inside Iran. He directly blamed Khamenei for spreading misery beyond Iran’s borders—an implicit reference to Tehran’s support for regional terror groups and its ongoing military entanglements in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas), and Yemen (the Houthis). These interventions, coordinated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have strained Iran’s resources while delivering little benefit to ordinary citizens.
The cleric scoffed at the authorities’ proclamations of economic strength, stating regime slogans do not translate into tangible improvement. Public calls for economic self-reliance are viewed by many Iranians as hollow, serving more to mask failures in governance than propose achievable solutions. Years of prioritizing ideological conflicts, especially the so-called “axis of resistance” against Israel and the West, have relegated domestic needs to secondary importance, further alienating the population.
Akbar-Nejad’s criticism did not come without personal risk. Approximately a year ago, he was detained by IRGC intelligence and later released under uncertain circumstances. The IRGC, officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, remains the most powerful arm of Iran’s security apparatus, responsible for suppressing dissent both within and outside the clerical class. The fact that Akbar-Nejad persisted in his public critique post-detention underscores growing desperation and a willingness by some elites to challenge the regime despite grave risks.
Since its inception, the Islamic Republic has relied on the authority of the Supreme Leader and the clerical establishment to maintain control and suppress dissent. Criticizing the Supreme Leader is considered a grave offense, and the intelligence services rigorously monitor even senior clerics for signs of disloyalty. Dissent within the clerical class is particularly dangerous for the regime, as it signals a possible breach in the consensus upon which its legitimacy is founded.
Akbar-Nejad’s remarks have emerged at a precarious moment. Widespread protests—most recently after the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody—have revealed deep-seated grievances that extend far beyond economic complaints to aspirations for fundamental change. The regime’s response, marked by intense repression, mass detentions, and lethal force, has only deepened public mistrust and signaled an enduring crisis of legitimacy.
Regionally, Iran’s aggressive posture has entrenched it in a war with Israel and a conflict with much of the West. Iranian support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah has resulted in devastating violence across the Middle East, including the October 7, 2023 massacre against Jews in Israel—the worst such attack since the Holocaust—and ongoing hostilities on Israel’s northern and southern fronts. While these actions are presented by Iranian leaders as part of a righteous struggle, the reality for many Iranian citizens is that the costs of regional confrontation manifest in poverty and isolation at home.
Israel, which bears the brunt of the Iranian regime’s support for terrorism, views internal dissent in Iran as evidence that the regime’s narrative is losing traction even within its own heartland. Israeli officials have described the war against Iranian proxies as both a defensive necessity and a campaign against a regional threat engineered in Tehran. As Israel continues to repel rocket, drone, and infiltration attacks from Iranian-backed militants, the Israeli government repeatedly warns that the ultimate fight is against the Iranian regime’s ambitions—not the Iranian people.
Akbar-Nejad’s statements, therefore, are not merely domestic criticism; they are a reflection of the tensions and contradictions at the heart of Iran’s geopolitical strategy. As divisions within the regime’s core constituency widen, the risk of instability grows. For Israel and its allies, this dynamic underscores the importance of distinguishing between the Iranian regime and its adversarial policies, and the broader Iranian populace, many of whom yearn for normalcy and peace.
Without systemic reform, the challenges Akbar-Nejad articulates—economic paralysis, loss of legitimacy, and relentless militarism—are unlikely to abate. As the regime persists in external aggression and internal repression, the gulf between ruler and ruled may only widen, with implications not only for Iran’s future but for an already volatile region. Iran’s internal dissent, exemplified by clerics willing to speak out, could ultimately play a decisive role in reshaping the Middle East’s political landscape.
