Gholam Hossein Mohseni Eje’i: “We Will Certainly Not Roll Out the Red Carpet for Iranians Abroad”

Gholam Hossein Mohseni Eje’i’s statement that “we will not roll out the red carpet for Iranians abroad” comes at a time when confiscation of citizens’ assets continues, while government-affiliated individuals enjoy security and prosperity outside the country.

As economic pressures and political repression in Iran intensify, recent statements by the head of the Islamic Republic’s judiciary have once again exposed deep contradictions in the government’s conduct; a contradiction that on one hand involves widespread confiscation of assets belonging to dissenting citizens, and on the other hand, creates a safe pathway for government-affiliated individuals to transfer and preserve their wealth abroad.

Gholam Hossein Mohseni Eje’i, in explicit remarks while defending judicial policies against opponents, emphasized that the Islamic Republic will not “roll out the red carpet” for the return of Iranians living abroad. He simultaneously stated: “If Iranians abroad see that their country has been subjected to aggression and now wish to return to their homeland, we should welcome them—this is befitting their situation—but we will certainly not roll out the red carpet.”

This position is being raised at a time when, over recent years, numerous cases of arrests and issuance of severe sentences against dual-nationality citizens and Iranians who have returned to Iran have been reported; a process that has led many Iranians abroad to view returning home as involving serious security and legal risks.

In another section of these remarks, Eje’i defensively justified the continued confiscation of opponents’ assets with a firm tone, stating: “We genuinely believe that the seizure and confiscation of assets belonging to those who betrayed the country and domestic partners of aggressors is precisely justice and the dispensation of justice.” A claim that has faced widespread critical reactions, as many of these cases lack judicial transparency and are based on general and security-related accusations.

He also claimed that these assets “will be used for the sake of public interest and infrastructure reconstruction”; however, critics say there is no transparent mechanism for monitoring these resources, and past experiences have shown that such assets are often spent through unaccountable channels.

In this regard, the judiciary had previously announced the issuance of orders for identification, seizure of assets, and blocking of accounts belonging to a wide spectrum of citizens; individuals ranging from artists and athletes to economic activists, media figures, and cyberspace users. This breadth indicates that the scope of actions has not been limited, but has increasingly become comprehensive.

Reports have also been published showing that even the families of individuals critical of the government inside Iran have been targeted by these pressures. In one such case, a journalist abroad announced that his family received text messages about the change of ownership of their property; an action that according to observers, exemplifies collective punishment and an indirect tool of pressure on critics.

This comes at a time when, simultaneously with these policies, numerous reports have been published about the presence and economic activities of affiliates of government institutions in various countries; individuals who, using extensive financial resources, are engaged in investments and living in safe and prosperous conditions outside Iran. This very issue has intensified criticisms regarding “dual justice” in the structure of the Islamic Republic.

Alongside these developments, the simultaneous increase in executions in Iran has doubled concerns; particularly in circumstances where political and military tensions in the region have escalated and many observers view these measures as part of a policy of instilling fear within the country.

The totality of these processes presents a clear picture of a recurring pattern: systematic pressure on ordinary and dissenting citizens, alongside immunity and prosperity for circles close to power. A pattern that not only erodes public trust but reduces the concept of justice to a tool serving suppression.