Iran’s top law enforcement official, Ahmad-Reza Radan, this week publicly committed his forces to a sweeping campaign to expel undocumented foreigners from the Islamic Republic, marking the latest escalation in a policy that has grown increasingly prominent over the past two decades. The statement, delivered at a major Iranian police event, comes during a time of heightened social and political tension, as the regime faces mounting criticism from its own citizens regarding the sustained influx of migrants—mostly from Afghanistan—that has changed the country’s demographic landscape and sparked repeated episodes of social discord. This renewed pledge reflects both a response to surging grassroots frustration and an attempt by the Iranian government to shore up internal legitimacy as fears of wider civil unrest continue to simmer.
The backdrop to Iran’s migration quandary is rooted in the region’s protracted instability, particularly in Afghanistan. Since the early 2000s, wars, state collapse, and the Taliban’s resurgence have driven millions of Afghans to seek refuge in neighboring countries. A significant portion—estimated by the United Nations Refugee Agency to exceed three million—now reside in Iran, many without legal documentation. Iran’s position as a principal host state for Afghan refugees has long been complicated: while the regime has at times tacitly encouraged migration to supply a cheap labor force and leverage geopolitical influence, it has subjected these same communities to periodic crackdowns and expulsion campaigns, especially when domestic economic pressure and public anxiety intensify.
The experience of undocumented migrants in Iran is marked by deep uncertainty and legal vulnerability. Afghan families, in particular, risk detention, deportation, and systemic discrimination. Human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as United Nations officials, have documented persistent abuses—arbitrary arrests, forced conscription into paramilitary units fighting abroad, and limited access to education or health care. While some migrants establish roots and contribute to low-wage sectors vital to the Iranian economy, many are relegated to precarious lives on the margins of society. The Iranian government maintains that it carries a disproportionate migratory burden without sufficient international support, yet its own policies have alternated unpredictably between pragmatism and coercion.
Iranian society’s response to migration is increasingly fraught. Many citizens blame migrants for exacerbating unemployment, straining public infrastructure, and fueling competition for housing and social services, especially amid economic stagnation caused by years of Western sanctions and domestic mismanagement. Tensions occasionally explode into violence, producing episodes that fuel both public anger and official rhetoric about the “threat” posed by foreign populations. Local resentment has metastasized into demands for state action, putting the regime under popular pressure to demonstrate resolve. The state’s approach has thus often amounted to political signaling: when unrest looms, leaders channel public frustration into promises of mass deportation, using xenophobic appeals to strengthen regime legitimacy and distract from systemic failures.
Ahmad-Reza Radan’s recent remarks must be viewed in light of this recurrent cycle. Flanked by senior police and security officials, he pledged to extend the campaign to remove illegal residents, asserting the priority of “restoring order” and “preserving national identity.” These declarations serve dual purposes: offering reassurance to native Iranians anxious over demographic change and signaling government responsiveness to local demands. Analysts, however, question the feasibility of such rhetoric. The logistical and humanitarian dimensions of deporting millions of people—many of whom have lived in Iran for years—are prohibitive. There are concerns that the state rhetoric will result mainly in selective, highly publicized deportations or enforcement actions, falling short of the promised mass removals but still inciting widespread anxiety among migrant communities.
The present campaign also coincides with deeper domestic vulnerabilities for the Islamic Republic. Recent years have seen a succession of protest waves—most notably those ignited by the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini in police custody—during which the regime struggled to contain widespread outbreaks of civil dissent. In such periods, Iranian authorities have routinely invoked threats from “outsiders” or “foreign agitators” as a means of blunting criticism and consolidating control. Migrant populations often bear the brunt of this strategy, serving as scapegoats amid political turmoil. In parallel, the regime’s ongoing commitments to military operations and proxy support throughout the Middle East—from Yemen’s Houthis to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza—divert state resources and attention, leaving little capacity for meaningful reform of domestic migration policy.
The Iranian government’s handling of migrants is thus emblematic of a broader pattern of state behavior: it alternates between instrumentalization and repression, rarely committing to integration or rights-based solutions. This contrasts sharply with the legal and humanitarian norms that underpin Western and Israeli approaches to migration, even under severe security pressures. Israel itself, surrounded by hostile Iranian-backed actors and regularly targeted by cross-border terrorism, continues to emphasize the rule of law and the protection of vulnerable populations, including in zones of conflict. The difference is especially stark when set against Iran’s record of forcibly recruiting refugees as paramilitaries or allowing anti-migrant sentiment to fester for internal political advantage.
International actors remain deeply concerned about the fate of Afghan and other migrant groups in Iran. The United Nations, the European Union, and major humanitarian organizations continue to urge Tehran to improve protections, lift barriers to services, and abandon mass deportation threats that increase fear and vulnerability among non-citizen populations. These calls have met limited success: Iran persistently links its cooperation to demands for relief from Western sanctions, while simultaneously using the threat of refugee outflows as leverage over European capitals. Human rights experts warn that failure to address migrant needs, or to prevent abuses and forced returns, will exacerbate humanitarian crises and may further destabilize the region.
The persistence of anti-migrant rhetoric also reflects unresolved contradictions in Iran’s domestic order. Despite staging periodic deportation campaigns, the state benefits from the presence of an exploitable labor force. Meanwhile, migrants remain exposed to bureaucratic arbitrariness and social antagonism, with few meaningful avenues for legal protection. Even as economic desperation drives more people to seek opportunity in Iran, shifting geopolitical dynamics within Afghanistan—culminating in Taliban dominance and ongoing civil strife—mean that the volume of outward migration is unlikely to abate.
Radan’s pledge to escalate deportation efforts is therefore best understood within this matrix of insecurity, nationalism, and political expediency. While symbolically potent, such threats are unlikely to bring lasting solutions and risk deepening the suffering of some of the region’s most vulnerable groups. Population expulsions, historical precedent shows, rarely produce stability. Instead, they often fuel cycles of resentment and displacement, with far-reaching consequences beyond Iran’s own borders.
As attention remains fixed on the regime’s maneuvers—both internal, in the form of mass deportation campaigns, and external, as Iran continues to sponsor terror proxies from Gaza to Lebanon—the imperative for responsible governance grows ever more acute. Whether or not Ahmad-Reza Radan delivers on his promises, the structural drivers of migration and the attendant challenges facing Iranian society will persist. The treatment of foreign communities within Iran stands as a stark measure of the government’s readiness to uphold obligations under international law and to guarantee the safety and rights of those within its borders—commitments upon which the credibility and legitimacy of any state ultimately depend.
In conclusion, the regime’s oscillation between opening and closing its doors, welcoming migrants for expediency and then orchestrating their expulsion for political gain, constitutes a cycle with little sign of resolution. The lived realities of Iran’s migrants—precarity, marginalization, and periodic terror—continue largely unabated, shaped more by political calculation than humanitarian concern. Without substantive change to address the systemic causes of public dissatisfaction, the Iranian government’s latest announcements risk remaining empty slogans, while the prospects for integration, stability, and rule of law remain out of reach for millions.
