Confiscation for survival: When the government seizes people's property in the name of security to gain power

Confiscation for survival; from seizing the property of critics to transferring wealth abroad, has turned economic pressure into a tool of control and future-building for the regime.

In the wake of the heightened security situation and the suppression of critical voices, the Tehran Prosecutor's Office has announced the issuance of a broad order to seize the assets and freeze the bank accounts of more than 100 Iranians abroad, a move that has once again brought the issue of the political use of economic tools to the forefront.

According to the official announcement, these individuals include well-known figures from among actors, athletes, journalists, and media workers such as Iran International and Manto. The statement said that this action was taken within the framework of countering “collaboration with the Zionist regime and hostile countries.”

The judiciary also emphasized in this regard: "In line with the law on intensifying the punishment of espionage and cooperation with the Zionist regime and hostile countries against national security and interests, a judicial order was issued to identify and seize the assets and accounts of a number of famous figures abroad."

This is not the first time that the Islamic Republic's judicial and security structures have used financial tools to pressure critics, but the scale of this action, which has targeted dozens of people in different countries, indicates a new phase in this policy.

According to reports, in just one part of the order, the accounts and assets of 63 employees of a media network and 25 other network associates were targeted. The list also includes names of individuals who have merely supported foreign attacks in cyberspace.

This is despite the fact that many of these people live outside of Iran, raising the question of what the real purpose of such actions is: to enforce justice, or to send a political message and instill fear?

Experts believe that confiscating assets in this context is not just a judicial measure, but rather part of a long-standing pattern in the Islamic Republic's power structure; a pattern that has used asset confiscation for decades to eliminate opponents and secure its own financial resources.

This trend has been repeated many times in various forms since the beginning of the regime's formation until today: "from confiscating the property of political activists and religious minorities to economic pressure on critics abroad."

While a large segment of Iranian society struggles with economic crises, inflation, and declining purchasing power, such measures reinforce the perception that financial resources are being spent not to improve the situation of the people, but to maintain the power structure and its interests.

Critics say these policies ultimately serve a specific purpose: “accumulating wealth and transferring it abroad, where many of those connected to power have provided themselves and their families with a secure and prosperous life for years.”

Meanwhile, numerous international reports in recent years have pointed to the outflow of capital from Iran and the extensive investment of some government affiliates in Western countries, a trend that is in complete contrast to domestic economic pressure.

The seizure of assets of people living outside Iran is an attempt to extend control beyond its borders. It could also serve as a warning to other critics: even abroad, you are not immune to pressure.

This is despite the fact that human rights organizations have repeatedly warned against the use of general and vague security charges to restrict freedom of expression.

The government justifies these measures within the framework of "confronting the enemy," but critics believe that such policies, rather than creating security, fuel public distrust and deepen the gap between the people and the government.

In a situation where people are facing widespread economic pressures, confiscation of property, even if it is directed at individuals outside the country, sends a clear message: "The economy is being used not as a means of public welfare, but as a tool to control and eliminate dissent."

The judiciary's recent move to seize assets on a large scale is not just a legal decision; it is part of a larger strategy in which economic tools serve political goals.

Meanwhile, the fundamental question remains: "Are these resources being spent on improving people's lives, or on securing the future of those who are preparing for the days after power?" The answer to this question may be the key to understanding many of today's decisions.