Wars are not decided solely on the battlefield; a significant part of their outcome is shaped in less visible layers, including communication infrastructure. The experience of the recent 40-day war showed that the internet is no longer merely a convenience or even just an economic tool, but has become one of the vital pillars of governing a country in times of crisis. In this context, imposing restrictions on access to the international internet within Iran—while costly and undesirable under normal conditions—was, within the logic of “emergency security,” to some extent understandable and even tolerable for society.
The issue, however, begins when society senses that a “state of emergency” is edging toward becoming a “lasting norm.” A society that has accepted restrictions on international internet access during wartime expects, in a ceasefire period, a faster move toward easing those restrictions and restoring normal conditions. This expectation is not merely a matter of comfort; it reflects social rationality and a desire to return to the natural order of life. In such a setting, proposals such as “tiered internet” or the so-called “pro internet” not only fail to meet this expectation but are widely seen as undermining it and fostering dissatisfaction among large segments of the population.
In this context, the clear position taken by Mohammadreza Aref, First Vice President, is of particular importance. His emphasis that “equal and non-discriminatory access to the internet must be provided for all segments of society,” and his explicit statement that “tiered internet is incompatible with the government’s justice-oriented approach,” effectively draw a clear line between “crisis management” and “sustainable policymaking.” If properly translated into action, these remarks could mark an important starting point for redefining internet governance in Iran.
The reality is that the internet today, as Aref also noted, has become a “public right.” This characterization carries substantial legal and political weight. Once we speak of a “public right,” access can no longer be reduced to a privilege reserved for specific groups, special institutions, or more advantaged classes. The experience of many countries has shown that any form of differentiated access not only fails to enhance efficiency but also deepens social divides and erodes public trust.
At the same time, emphasizing “equal access” does not imply a complete rejection of security or administrative necessities. The core issue is how this access is organized, not whether it should be restricted or not. In other words, the country needs to move from “reactive, ad hoc policies” toward a “smart and sustainable governance model” in the internet domain. In such a model, several principles must be addressed simultaneously:
First, a clear distinction between emergency conditions and normal circumstances. Restrictions imposed in the context of war or acute security threats must be time-bound, transparently communicated, and accompanied by a defined mechanism for returning to normal conditions. Maintaining such restrictions after the crisis subsides amounts to an erosion of social capital.
Second, the preservation of communications equity. As senior government officials have stressed, any policy that leads to “tiered internet” effectively reproduces inequality in a sphere that now underpins education, employment, business, and even civic participation. Without equal access, the digital economy loses its meaning.
Third, attention to people’s livelihoods and economic life. In recent years, millions have made a living through online platforms, social networks, and internet-based services. Prolonged or discriminatory restrictions on access directly affect these groups’ livelihoods and can fuel economic instability and, in turn, social discontent. Sattar Hashemi, Minister of Communications, said in a meeting with Mohammadreza Aref: “Around 10 million people, mostly from the middle and lower classes, are directly engaged in activities that depend on stable digital connectivity. Continued internet instability amounts to a direct threat to the employment of this large population, an issue that could carry deep social and economic consequences.”
Fourth, strengthening infrastructure resilience. Part of the challenge stems from weaknesses or fragility in infrastructure. If the country’s communication networks are designed to withstand external threats and security pressures, the need for broad restrictions will diminish. The stability referenced by the Minister of Communications in his meeting with Aref must evolve from a temporary achievement into a lasting feature.
It must be acknowledged that internet governance in Iran has reached a turning point. The experience of the recent war highlighted both security imperatives and the unparalleled importance of free and equal access. The time has come to reconcile these two necessities—not in opposition, but within a rational and balanced framework. Although the process of improving public access to the global internet has begun in recent days, it appears that it must be managed with greater speed, quality, and precision. The First Vice President’s remarks can be seen as a sign of this recognition; what will ultimately matter, however, is the translation of these positions into clear, sustainable, and predictable policies. A society that endured restrictions during the difficult days of war now, more than anything, needs “equity in access” and “stability in policymaking.” Without these two, even the best infrastructure will not be able to restore public trust.
NOURNEWS