Introduction
Since its foundation, the Islamic Republic of Iran has relied not only on coercive measures but also on narrative-building strategies to maintain domestic political control and navigate international affairs. Among these narratives, the concept of “psychological pressure” has become a recurring theme, particularly in relation to the country’s nuclear dispute and the threat of snapback sanctions.
By framing sanctions as a mere psychological operation rather than an economic reality, Iranian officials attempt to shift responsibility for crises, contain social unrest, and reinforce the legitimacy of the ruling system.
The Language of Psychological Pressure in Official Discourse
The repeated use of “psychological pressure” in the rhetoric of Iranian leaders highlights its centrality in the regime’s communication strategy.
- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (2018): “The enemy’s plan is economic pressure and psychological pressure to force the Islamic system to surrender.”
- President Hassan Rouhani (2018): “Trump’s words are either for the U.S. congressional elections or aimed at creating psychological pressure on the Iranian people.”
- Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati (2019) attributed the surge of the dollar beyond 30,000 tomans to the “psychological effect” of sanctions news.
The return of the snapback mechanism in 2025 intensified the use of this narrative:
- Mahmoud Nabavian, Deputy Chair of the National Security Commission: “Even if the snapback mechanism is activated, it will be more psychological than economic.” (July 15, 2025)
- Abbas Goudarzi, Parliamentary Spokesman: “The activation of snapback sanctions creates a psychological atmosphere rather than real economic change.” (September 2, 2025)
- Hosseinali Haji Deligani, Deputy of the Article 90 Commission: “This is psychological warfare and deception, not new sanctions.” (September 20, 2025)
- Hamid Ghanbari, Deputy Minister of Economic Diplomacy: “The return of UN sanctions is symbolic; the real objective is to orchestrate psychological packages and media campaigns.” (September 21, 2025)
Why Emphasize Snapback Sanctions and Psychological Pressure?
1. Shifting Responsibility for Economic Collapse
Iran’s currency has lost over 100 times its value in two decades. Inflation, unemployment, and structural corruption have crippled the economy. Yet officials consistently blame these outcomes on the “psychological pressure” of sanctions rather than on domestic mismanagement. This allows the regime to deflect accountability and redirect public anger toward external enemies.
2. Delegitimizing Protests and Social Movements
Protests arising from economic hardship and political repression are systematically portrayed as the product of “foreign psychological manipulation.” By labeling demonstrators as victims of external influence, the regime strips their actions of authenticity and portrays dissent as illegitimate. This framing provides ideological justification for violent crackdowns and arrests.
3. Reconciling Legitimacy Claims with Social Unrest
The Islamic Republic claims divine legitimacy and frames elections as a form of public allegiance to the ruling system. However, widespread protests challenge this claim. The concept of “psychological pressure” resolves this contradiction: citizens are not consciously rejecting the system, officials argue, but are temporarily misled by foreign propaganda. This interpretation allows the regime to sustain its narrative of religious and political legitimacy despite recurring domestic crises.
Historical Experience: People versus Western Powers
The regime’s assertion that sanctions aim to provoke regime change is inconsistent with the historical experience of the Iranian people.
- During the Green Movement of 2009, protesters openly called on President Barack Obama to choose between supporting the Iranian people or appeasing the regime. Yet it later emerged that the Obama administration had already begun nuclear talks with Tehran at the same time.
- In the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement of 2021, European officials performed symbolic acts of solidarity, but diplomatic relations with Tehran remained unchanged. Western governments continued to negotiate and engage with Iranian authorities, reinforcing the regime’s survival.
These examples reveal that, contrary to official claims, Western powers have often favored preserving the Islamic Republic over siding with grassroots movements.
Political Function of Snapback Sanctions and Psychological Pressure
The strategic use of this concept demonstrates how the Islamic Republic seeks to manage its legitimacy crisis through narrative engineering:
- Economic crises → attributed to foreign psychological warfare, not domestic mismanagement.
- Protests and uprisings → depicted as the outcome of enemy manipulation, not genuine political agency.
- Legitimacy gap → covered by portraying dissent as temporary and externally induced rather than a real break from the system.
By doing so, the regime preserves its ideological narrative while sustaining authoritarian control.
Conclusion
The discourse of snapback sanctions and psychological pressure illustrates how the Islamic Republic weaponizes language and narrative to defend its political order. It is not merely a rhetorical tactic but a systematic strategy to:
- justify economic failures,
- delegitimize opposition,
- and reconcile the contradiction between divine legitimacy claims and recurring social unrest.
In this sense, psychological pressure is less about the actual effect of sanctions and more about the regime’s survival strategy in the face of international isolation and domestic discontent.
