Reaching a Deal on Internet Censorship: Harder Than Negotiating with the U.S.?

“I will run a Speedtest right in front of you so you can see that internet speeds are fine.” We heard this phrase countless times from Issa Zarepour, the ICT Minister of the previous administration, in response to public outrage over crippling internet speeds. He came and went, leaving the status quo largely unchanged: the state of Iran's internet deteriorated so severely that the promise of its reform became a potent campaign tool to draw voters to the ballot box. Masoud Pezeshkian grasped this dynamic clearly, placing "improving internet access and reviewing filtering policies" at the very core of his presidential campaign. Yet months into the new administration, this pledge appears hopelessly trapped in bureaucratic labyrinths and political expedience, showing no tangible departure from the past.

Under Ebrahim Raisi, Zarepour became infamous for constantly citing Speedtest benchmarks in the face of a deluge of public complaints about throttled bandwidth and severe outages—an approach that masked systemic degradation with distorted data, answering user frustration with bureaucratic denial. Today, Sattar Hashemi, Pezeshkian’s ICT Minister, has taken the helm under slogans of "expert appraisal" and avoiding "demagoguery." Yet this stylistic shift has yielded zero change in results. The promise of lifting internet filtering remains entirely unfulfilled. The minister's standard justification is ongoing "negotiations with the Supreme Council of Cyberspace" and the time required to "exchange and review demands between stakeholders."

This brings several fundamental questions to the fore:

1. Mr. Pezeshkian secured votes on the explicit promise of opening up the internet and ending arbitrary filtering. Delivering on this pledge is not an act of charity, but a solemn constitutional duty and an obligation to the electorate. The teachings of the Nahj al-Balagha, with which the president is intimately familiar, warn sternly against broken promises. Why must the execution of a definitive campaign promise require exhaustive negotiations with unelected bodies that hold an opposing ideological worldview and represent factions thoroughly rejected at the polls? Does the elected president lack the authority to execute his core mandate, or does he simply lack the resolve to wield it?

2. Draconian internet filtering is not merely a stranglehold on businesses, education, communications, and the free flow of information; it has become a visceral symbol of alienation between the ruling establishment and the younger generation. How can the government justify dragging its feet behind the excuse of endless domestic talks?

3. How is it that Tehran can engage with the United States—a nation branded for decades as its foremost geopolitical adversary—and produce optimistic breakthroughs within two rounds of talks that bolster economic indicators (such as the value of the national currency), yet months of internal negotiations with state regulatory bodies yield zero progress on a basic domestic demand? Is the political will to resolve internet censorship truly weaker than the resolve to negotiate with Washington? The president would do well to establish a strict deadline for these internal negotiations, allowing citizens to seek alternative solutions should talks with the Supreme Council of Cyberspace fail.

Mr. Pezeshkian, the window of hope and national consensus opened among tech professionals and Iranian youth is closing at breakneck speed. Satellite internet, despite technical and logistical hurdles, is becoming more accessible with each passing day. Users and digital enterprises will not wait indefinitely for the state to unblock Telegram or YouTube; they will forge their own pathways, regardless of the cost. In the age of generative AI, why assume that younger generations remain beholden to twenty-year-old platforms, pleading at official doorways?

Those born in 2005, the year YouTube launched, are now twenty-year-olds packing their bags for Imam Khomeini International Airport. They neither comprehend an institutional hostility toward global connectivity nor place faith in the theater of bureaucratic negotiations. If the current trajectory continues, a day will arrive when the state offers free, unrestricted access, only to find that citizens gladly pay foreign satellite providers like Starlink rather than accept state-curated connectivity.

Under the current government, the state of the internet differs from its predecessor only in that official Speedtest demonstrations have been replaced by silence and delay. Just as citizens swiftly tuned out Zarepour, they will soon disregard the current ministry. The administration should stop squandering energy on sterile negotiations. Digital freedom was a litmus test for your administration’s courage, rationality, and commitment to the public good. The accelerating exodus of youth and talent echoes the weary words of the old Iranian farmer: “You and your country are left to yourselves.” Those in power who dismiss this reality have yet to comprehend the gravity of what lies ahead.