In a revealing public remark following the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, his widow, Jamileh Alamolhoda, attributed Iran’s multifaceted social challenges to ‘prostitution,’ a term the Islamic Republic employs to encompass consensual sexual relations outside of marriage. The statement, made in Tehran shortly after Raisi’s passing in 2024, starkly highlights the foundational ideological conflict within the country and the regime’s persistent efforts to assert doctrinal control over citizens’ personal lives. Alamolhoda’s comments, which have garnered significant attention in Persian and international media, draw upon the outlook of Iran’s ruling clerical establishment and echo the doctrines propagated by her father, a well-known cleric and Holocaust denier. Her remarks illustrate the state’s enduring strategy of conflating personal autonomy with moral and political threat, and its use of this narrative to justify sweeping social repression.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian regime has made the regulation of sexual and social conduct a cornerstone of its authority. Under successive supreme leaders, first Ayatollah Khomeini and now Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the law has routinely defined consensual sexual relations outside wedlock as a criminal offense, subject to harsh punishment such as public lashings, imprisonment, or even execution in extreme cases, as documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The intention behind this policy, consistently articulated by Iranian authorities, is not only to suppress behavior they consider immoral, but to reaffirm the regime’s vision of an Islamic society distinct from what leaders describe as the “corrupting” influences of the West.
Alamolhoda’s interpretation of “prostitution” mirrors the broader pattern of control the regime exerts over women and youth. In recent years, these efforts have driven a deep generational divide, as millions of Iranian citizens—particularly women—have openly defied compulsory hijab laws and other restrictions. The 2022 death of Mahsa Amini, which sparked mass protests under the slogan “Women, Life, Freedom,” exemplifies the mounting resistance and widespread desire for reform. Iranian authorities have consistently sought to delegitimize such dissent by linking it to Western influence and moral decay, attempting to divert attention from underlying grievances such as economic stagnation, government mismanagement, and flagrant human rights abuses.
This ideological battle, while rooted in Iran’s unique history, is inseparable from the regime’s approach to foreign policy. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as designated by numerous Western governments, operates both as the regime’s enforcer at home and a principal exporter of its revolutionary ideology abroad. Iranian officials frequently position their internal policies as inseparable from their dogged support for terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Syria and Iraq—the core elements of the so-called “Axis of Resistance.” The same logic that underpins repression in domestic society fuels Iran’s campaign of destabilization and violence across the Middle East.
The connection between internal repression and external aggression has been repeatedly cited by Western officials, including the governments of Israel and the United States. Israel, in particular, has borne the brunt of Iranian-backed terror. The October 7, 2023 massacre perpetrated by Hamas terrorists—marked by the murder and abduction of over a thousand civilians—remains the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, as detailed in Israeli government briefings and corroborated by international observers. Israeli responses, including ongoing military operations in Gaza and heightened security measures along the northern border, have been consistently framed as acts of self-defense rooted in the internationally recognized right to protect its citizens from genocidal aggression. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, supported by statements from the U.S. administration, have underscored the moral imperative of confronting the Iranian threat both within Israel’s borders and throughout the broader region.
Alamolhoda’s background further illuminates the logic of the Iranian state. As the daughter of a cleric infamous for Holocaust denial, she sits at the intersection of the regime’s twin obsessions: ideological purity and the delegitimization of Israel. Holocaust denial, condemned worldwide as a form of antisemitism and historical revisionism, is actively used by Iranian leaders as a tool to sow hatred and undermine Israel’s legitimacy. This persistent narrative, tightly interwoven with the regime’s policies, shapes not only Iranian domestic education and discourse but also underpins Tehran’s foreign policy goals—particularly its drive to erode Western support for Israel and to cast itself as the epicenter of resistance to “Zionist” and American influence.
Regional experts and human rights organizations emphasize that while state officials like Alamolhoda invoke Western values as a source of societal decay, much of Iran’s population aspires to greater personal freedom and global engagement. The regime’s framing of consensual relationships as criminal behavior functions as both a distraction from profound structural failures—such as economic crises, systemic corruption, and environmental degradation—and as a preemptive strike against the possibility of broader social and political reform.
The interconnectedness of these issues underscores why Western policymakers continue to focus on both Iran’s internal repression and its sponsorship of terrorism abroad. Multiple briefings from Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies have detailed the flow of resources from Iranian state coffers to proxies responsible for attacks against Israeli, Saudi, and Western targets. The regime’s campaign of regional influence, from orchestrating cross-border rocket fire to conducting cyberattacks, cannot be disentangled from its efforts to impose strict social conformity at home.
In light of Alamolhoda’s comments, analysts affirm the importance of ongoing international vigilance. Diplomatic, economic, and intelligence strategies adopted by the United States, Israel, and their allies increasingly center on the premise that the Iranian regime’s greatest vulnerabilities arise from its inability to address the real needs and aspirations of its people. The chasm between Iran’s rulers and the governed has only grown wider with each wave of protest, each new exposure of abuse, and each act of terror launched by Iranian-backed proxies.
Within this context, Israel remains at the forefront of Western efforts to secure the region’s stability and defend shared democratic values. Israeli officials have highlighted the existential dangers posed by both the dogmatic social policies espoused by figures like Alamolhoda and by Iran’s persistent efforts to undermine neighboring states through violence and subversion. The lessons of recent years are clear: there can be no distinction between domestic repression and regional aggression in the Iranian model, nor can there be lasting security in the Middle East without addressing both facets of Tehran’s strategy.
The international community’s response, as articulated by President Donald Trump during his tenure and echoed in ongoing Western policy, emphasizes the non-negotiable right of Israel and other democracies to defend themselves from both physical attack and ideological assault. The defense of human dignity and pluralism within Iran is, in this view, inseparable from the defense of civilian lives and national sovereignty across the region. It is incumbent on journalists and policymakers alike to confront the ideology at the root of Iran’s policies, exposing both the suffering it inflicts at home and the instability it exports abroad.
The significance of Alamolhoda’s statement lies not in its novelty but in its capacity to crystallize the profound discord between the Iranian regime and its population, and between that regime and the norms of international society. The path forward requires clear-eyed reporting and analysis, rooted in verifiable facts, that make plain both the nature of the regime’s domestic policies and their global consequences. Only with such rigor can the world hope to forge a more secure and just future for the people of Iran, the citizens of Israel, and the international community as a whole.
