In Tehran, a conspicuous sign recently hung over the busy Haqqani Highway has come to symbolize the profound rift between Iran’s ruling clerics and its general population. The message, direct and unsparing, read: “Agreement with the U.S.? Improving the people’s economic situation? No! All the money will go into the pockets of the mullahs.” This display arrives at a pivotal moment as the Iranian regime signals renewed willingness to negotiate with the United States over relief from crippling economic sanctions. Yet, the tone echoed by this public statement—openly skeptical, if not scornful—mirrors the prevailing sentiment among many Iranians: a sharp distrust in their leaders’ willingness to improve ordinary lives and a belief that any resulting economic benefits from negotiations will ultimately serve regime insiders above all others.
This popular cynicism cannot be divorced from decades of experience. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iranian citizens have repeatedly witnessed resources flowing overwhelmingly into the coffers of the governing elite or redirected to fund high-cost regional military adventurism. While successive rounds of sanctions imposed by Western powers have targeted Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its regional proxies—ranging from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Houthi rebels in Yemen and militias in Syria and Iraq—economic opportunities for the ordinary Iranian have continued to diminish. The rial, Iran’s currency, has suffered catastrophic depreciation; inflation and unemployment remain at record highs; and altogether, daily necessities are increasingly out of reach for countless families. Credible economic indicators, consistently reported by international organizations and financial monitors, corroborate the depth and universality of these hardships.
The recent sign is not merely an isolated act of protest but rather a broader manifestation of public disillusionment amplified by official statements from Tehran’s leadership itself. Senior Iranian government spokespeople have, on several occasions, conceded that even substantial sanctions relief or international deals may not translate into meaningful betterment for the population. State media and public announcements reveal instead a continuing prioritization of security services, military development, and ideological export. The concurrent admission by authorities and assertion by the protest sign together reinforce the entrenched expectation that the financial windfall from any U.S.-Iran rapprochement will fortify the regime’s ability to pursue its foreign policy objectives, especially those designed to exert influence or destabilize adversaries across the Middle East.
The historical context is instructive and critical for international audiences. Much of Iran’s post-revolutionary posture has been defined by antagonism toward the West, stretches of isolation, and assertive intervention through armed proxies. The country’s alignment with the so-called “axis of resistance” is well-documented: the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States, has for years directed resources, weapons, and operational support to actors such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—entities responsible for acts of terrorism against Israel, targeting civilian populations, and fostering instability. The October 7, 2023, Hamas attack in southern Israel—meticulously planned with Iranian sponsorship—constituted the single deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust and has served as a definitive flashpoint in the region, setting the parameters for Israel’s subsequent military operations.
For Israel and its Western allies, the Iranian regime’s use of economic capital as an engine for regional terrorism is not speculative but demonstrable in both intelligence reporting and the testimony of international security officials. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, among others, have persistently warned that financial relief to Iran—however structured—inevitably bolsters the very networks that threaten Israeli and global security. U.S. administrations, both past and present, have publicly corroborated these assessments, emphasizing that any diplomatic overtures toward Tehran must be coupled with mechanisms of transparency and enforceable constraint. President Donald Trump’s administration, for example, initiated a maximum pressure campaign targeting both Iran’s nuclear program and its capacity to fund terrorism. This was further underscored by the targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani, the IRGC’s Quds Force commander and the architect of Iran’s extraterritorial operations. Far from bringing stability or relief to the region, evidence indicates that subsidizing the Iranian regime through international accommodation has repeatedly led to escalation and conflict.
For Iranians within their own borders, expressions of dissent have grown both more frequent and more perilous. The country has been rocked by waves of protest, the most significant in recent memory triggered by the 2022 death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a young woman accused of violating the regime’s strict dress codes. The subsequent response—state violence, arbitrary arrests, and the execution of protesters—demonstrates the regime’s willingness to prioritize self-preservation above engagement or reform. These dynamics are attested by international human rights organizations, Western government reports, and first-hand witness testimonies. Civil society actors are left with scant opportunity for redress, and each act of public protest, such as the Haqqani Highway sign, constitutes a significant risk undertaken in pursuit of change.
It is vital to distinguish between the Iranian people, who suffer under economic and social constraints, and the regime, whose ideological and militaristic objectives underwrite the machinery of terror across the Middle East. Israel’s struggle, in this context, is not solely about self-defense, but about upholding the international order and the values of sovereignty and security upon which it is based. The threat posed by Iran’s proxies is not theoretical; it is tangible, persistent, and lethal. The cycle of hostage-taking, as seen in Gaza, and the indiscriminate violence directed against Israeli civilians, exemplifies a strategy of terror that defies legal and moral norms.
The international community, including leading European and American policymakers, faces the complex challenge of balancing diplomatic resolution with the imperatives of security. Any future negotiation with Tehran must address the core issues of verifiable compliance, inspection, and deterrence. Simply injecting new resources into an unaccountable system risks deepening social grievances inside Iran while further endangering regional peace. Policymakers, journalists, and analysts must base their decisions on the established record: the Iranian regime has consistently diverted opportunity for growth into capacity for conflict.
Reporting from within Iran remains fraught, but independent observers and data consistently substantiate the pattern: public skepticism towards regime promises is grounded in lived experience, not simply propaganda. The sign above Haqqani Highway has thus come to symbolize a much broader truth; it encapsulates the voices of millions who yearn for an end to both internal repression and externally-directed warfare. It serves as a warning and a call to action for all those who value stability, security, and freedom, not only in the Middle East but throughout the global community.
As current negotiations continue, Western capitals and their partners must remain vigilant—anchoring their positions in a clear-eyed understanding both of the hopes of the Iranian people and the track record of those who govern them. Only through steadfast commitment to principle and a determination to shield the innocent—Israeli citizens, Iranian dissidents, and the many communities caught in the crossfire of terror—can any prospect of progress emerge. The Haqqani Highway sign, in all its simplicity, makes plain the stakes of the moment, the failures of the past, and the requirements of the future.
