Speaking in a televised address, Pezeshkian said foreign leaders took advantage of public frustration caused by inflation and currency collapse, turning social grievances into what he described as an externally encouraged crisis.

The protests erupted in late December after sharp rises in food prices, housing costs, and unemployment placed heavy pressure on ordinary citizens

Demonstrations spread across multiple cities, drawing in thousands who voiced anger over economic mismanagement and declining living standards.

According to Iranian officials, the unrest lasted nearly two weeks before subsiding following a forceful security response by the authorities.

Human rights groups outside the country have reported very high casualty figures, while Iranian officials have provided lower but still significant numbers, highlighting the scale and intensity of the confrontation.

President Pezeshkian alleged that Washington, Tel Aviv, and European capitals provided encouragement and resources that pushed some protesters toward violence.

He claimed that foreign leaders were not motivated by concern for Iranian citizens but by a desire to weaken national unity and fracture society.

He argued that while the protests began as economic demonstrations, they were later transformed into something more dangerous.

In his words, the unrest was no longer just about livelihoods but had become a coordinated effort to sow hatred, division, and long term instability within Iran.

The Iranian president directly named U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and unnamed European leaders as key actors.

He said they publicly supported demonstrators while privately seeking to undermine Iran’s political system.

Trump has repeatedly expressed support for the protesters and warned Tehran against continued crackdowns.

U.S. officials have indicated that various options remain under review, including potential military measures, though no final decision has been announced.

Meanwhile, reports of increased U.S. naval activity in the region have heightened concerns about escalation.

Regional observers say such developments add to an already volatile security environment in the Middle East.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi echoed the president’s claims during interviews abroad, stating that thousands had been killed during the unrest, including security personnel.

He insisted that the protests were not a purely domestic phenomenon and accused foreign governments of interference.

Despite the sharp rhetoric, regional diplomacy has continued behind the scenes.

Countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have reportedly been working to ease tensions and prevent a direct military confrontation between Tehran and Washington.

At the center of the broader dispute remains Iran’s missile programme and nuclear related concerns.
The United States has demanded limits on missile development as a condition for renewed talks, a demand Iran has firmly rejected.

Araqchi stated that missiles would never be part of negotiations and warned that Iran was prepared for both dialogue and conflict if necessary.

He also dismissed talk of regime change, calling it an unrealistic fantasy promoted by Iran’s adversaries.

Iranian leaders maintain that the political system is resilient and deeply rooted, capable of withstanding both internal unrest and external pressure.

They argue that while economic reforms are needed, foreign intervention only worsens hardship and delays solutions.

The protests have faded for now, but analysts believe the underlying economic challenges remain unresolved.

Rising costs, sanctions, and regional tensions continue to shape daily life in Iran and influence its foreign policy posture.

As rhetoric intensifies between Tehran and Western capitals, the risk of miscalculation remains high.

Whether diplomacy can prevail over confrontation will likely depend on how both sides address security concerns and economic pressures in the months ahead.

The accounts suggest ordinary people going about daily life were struck down while observing or attempting to avoid demonstrations, turning streets into zones of panic and uncertainty.

Witnesses recount scenes in which security forces moved swiftly into protest areas and opened fire, leaving little distinction between demonstrators and passersby, according to testimonies shared with journalists and rights groups.

Families searching hospitals, morgues and detention centres say the lack of clear information has compounded their trauma, with many unsure whether loved ones are injured, detained or dead.

One widely cited case involves a young art student who was not participating in protests but was fatally shot while walking home near a demonstration.

Friends say he had paused briefly to watch events unfold before gunfire erupted, illustrating how quickly bystanders could become victims in the chaos. Such stories have circulated widely, reinforcing fears that simply being near a protest carried deadly risks.

Human rights organisations report that the unrest, which began as economic protests and rapidly escalated into broader political dissent, has been met with harsh tactics by authorities seeking to restore control.

Amnesty International and other groups allege that security forces used live ammunition, shotguns and metal pellets in crowded urban areas, sometimes firing from rooftops or elevated positions, increasing the danger to civilians.

The Iranian government has rejected claims of indiscriminate violence, blaming deaths on what it calls terrorists and foreign-backed agitators.

State media has broadcast images of damaged public buildings and police stations, framing the unrest as an organised campaign of destruction rather than spontaneous protests driven by public anger over economic hardship and political grievances.

Conflicting death tolls have added to the confusion, with rights groups estimating thousands of fatalities linked to the unrest, while officials provide lower but still significant figures.

Independent verification remains difficult due to restrictions on media access, internet shutdowns and limitations on communication with people inside the country, especially during the peak of violence.

International reaction has been cautious but concerned, with foreign governments and the United Nations urging restraint and respect for human rights.

Analysts say the unrest represents one of the most serious challenges to Iran’s leadership in years, as anger over economic pressures has merged with broader dissatisfaction over governance, freedoms and accountability.

For families of those killed, the political arguments offer little comfort. Many say their relatives had no intention of confronting authorities and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, underscoring the human cost of the crackdown.

As the unrest continues to shape Iran’s domestic and international standing, the stories of bystanders caught in the crossfire remain a stark reminder of how quickly instability can engulf everyday life.

The decision follows mounting international concern over reports of violence, widespread arrests, and an intensified crackdown on protesters across the country, as Iran continues to grapple with sustained internal unrest.

The special session was requested by a group of European countries including Britain, Germany, Iceland, Moldova and North Macedonia.

In a formal letter to the council’s president, the states cited credible reports pointing to alarming levels of violence against civilians, excessive use of force by security agencies, and serious violations of international human rights law.

Their request gained the backing of more than one-third of the council’s 47 members, meeting the threshold required to trigger an emergency meeting.

Diplomats in Geneva say the move reflects growing frustration within the international community over Iran’s response to anti-government demonstrations that have spread across multiple cities.

Protesters have raised grievances ranging from political repression and economic hardship to social freedoms, prompting a forceful response from authorities that has drawn criticism from rights groups and foreign governments.

The UN Human Rights Council session comes shortly after the UN Security Council in New York held discussions on Iran, underscoring the seriousness with which the situation is now being viewed at the highest levels of the United Nations.

While the Security Council meeting focused on broader regional stability and security implications, the Geneva session will concentrate specifically on human rights conditions inside the country.

Adding to the tense atmosphere, Iran’s national security parliamentary commission issued a strongly worded statement warning that any attack on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be considered an act triggering a declaration of holy war.

According to Iranian state-linked media, the commission said such an act would amount to war with the entire Islamic world and would require a formal decree of jihad by Islamic scholars, followed by a response from what it described as Islam’s defenders worldwide.

Analysts say the rhetoric reflects heightened sensitivity within Iran’s political establishment as protests persist and international scrutiny increases.

While Iranian officials have repeatedly framed demonstrations as foreign-instigated unrest, critics argue that the scale and persistence of protests indicate deep-rooted domestic dissatisfaction that cannot be dismissed as external interference.

Human rights organizations have documented allegations of mass detentions, internet restrictions, harsh sentencing, and the use of lethal force against demonstrators. Families of detainees and victims have also reported intimidation and lack of due process, raising concerns about transparency and accountability within Iran’s judicial and security systems.

The upcoming council session is expected to feature statements from UN officials, independent experts, and member states, with possible calls for investigations, monitoring mechanisms, or renewed mandates for special rapporteurs.

Although the Human Rights Council does not have enforcement powers, its sessions often play a significant role in shaping international opinion and increasing diplomatic pressure on governments accused of abuses.

Iran, for its part, has historically rejected what it calls politicized scrutiny of its internal affairs and has accused Western countries of double standards.

Tehran is likely to push back strongly against the special session, arguing that it violates national sovereignty and ignores what it describes as legitimate security concerns.

Despite these objections, diplomats say the urgency of the meeting reflects fears that the situation inside Iran could further deteriorate without international attention.

With protests ongoing and rhetoric escalating, the council’s deliberations on Friday are likely to be closely watched by governments, activists, and observers across the Middle East and beyond.

The outcome of the session may not immediately change conditions on the ground, but it signals that Iran’s human rights record has once again moved to the forefront of the global agenda.

For many Iranians, the meeting represents a rare moment of international focus on their demands and the risks they face in expressing them.

The unrest, which erupted in late December, rapidly spread from demonstrations over the falling value of the currency into widespread calls for an end to clerical rule, marking the most severe challenge to the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution.

According to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the death toll includes around 500 members of Iran’s security forces.

Authorities have accused what they describe as “armed rioters and terrorists” of killing civilians and security personnel alike, while insisting that the verified figures are unlikely to rise sharply.

Independent rights groups, however, have reported lower but still significant death tolls and tens of thousands of arrests, highlighting the difficulty of verifying information amid internet blackouts and restrictions on reporting.

The situation has taken a more alarming turn after Iran’s judiciary indicated that executions of detained protesters could proceed.

Judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir said some acts committed during the unrest were classified as Mohareb, a term under Islamic law meaning waging war against God, which carries the death penalty.

The comments have intensified international concern and fears of a harsher crackdown as authorities seek to consolidate control following weeks of violence.

US President Donald Trump has warned that Washington could intervene if mass executions go ahead. In recent days, Trump claimed Iranian leaders had paused the execution of hundreds of detainees, though Tehran has not officially confirmed this.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected US pressure, accusing Washington of supporting unrest and branding Trump a criminal for what he described as American-backed casualties inflicted on Iran.

Khamenei acknowledged that several thousand people had died but blamed foreign-backed groups, including the US and Israel, for fueling violence.

Iranian officials have repeatedly pointed to alleged external interference, a narrative the clerical establishment has long used during periods of unrest.

Israel, a long-standing adversary of Iran, launched military strikes against Iranian targets earlier in the year, further escalating regional tensions and shaping Tehran’s response to domestic instability.

Some of the most intense clashes and highest death tolls were reported in Iran’s Kurdish مناطق in the northwest, where separatist groups have historically clashed with central authorities.

Rights groups and residents say security forces used live ammunition in these areas, while officials allege armed groups attempted to exploit the unrest by crossing borders and attacking civilians.

Witness accounts describe chaotic scenes of burning buildings, gunfire, and violent confrontations between protesters and security forces.

Despite the scale of the violence, state media and residents suggest the crackdown has largely quelled street protests for now.

Internet blackouts, imposed to curb the spread of information and coordination, have been intermittently lifted and reimposed, leaving families inside and outside Iran struggling to communicate.

For many Iranians, the unrest has left deep scars and uncertainty over what comes next, particularly as the judiciary signals that severe punishments may still be imposed.

The crisis has placed Iran at the center of global attention once again. Its outcome could reshape both domestic politics and regional stability.