The government accuses with labels, intimidates with bullets, and silences with prison.

Arrest on charges of "monarchy," a repetition of the scenario of repression to impose a government that the people do not want.

While the wave of public discontent in Iran has once again taken to the streets, the Islamic Republic's security apparatus, following its usual pattern, has taken the path of repression, arrest, and filing cases instead of responding to the people's demands.

According to reports from Mashhad, the Intelligence Organization of the Revolutionary Guards of Khorasan Razavi Province announced the arrest of a number of citizens, claiming that these individuals were “elements affiliated with monarchist groups.” The same announcement claimed that the detainees were accused of destroying public property and murdering a security guard, and that a significant number of weapons were seized from them.

However, as has been seen many times in similar cases, no clear information has been provided about the identities of those detained, their exact numbers, where they are being held, or access to a lawyer. The silence on the details is part of the same mechanism that has been used in Iran for years: heavy accusations, one-sided media propaganda, and the elimination of the right to a defense.

The experience of the past years has shown that the Islamic Republic responds to almost every protest movement with labels such as “dependence on foreigners,” “action against national security and the system,” “promotion of a religion contrary to Islamic law,” or “monarchy.” In this official narrative, the protesting people are never dissatisfied citizens, but are always introduced as “guided elements.”

But the fundamental question is: "If the protests are not rooted in public demand, why do they repeat themselves time and time again in different cities and among different groups, from marketers and workers to students and women?"

The recent protests, which began as trade union rallies, quickly took on broader dimensions. The coming together of different social classes showed that the issue was not simply a limited economic demand, but a deeper dissatisfaction with the political structure and widespread civil restrictions. But the government’s response has been neither dialogue nor reform, but the presence of security forces, widespread arrests, and violent confrontations.

In a country whose constitution supposedly guarantees the right to assemble, in practice even the smallest peaceful protest can lead to arrest and security charges. Religious minorities, especially Christians, civil society activists, journalists, students, and even ordinary citizens who simply express their opinions on social media, face the risk of being summoned and detained.

Now, in the case of the Khorasan Razavi arrests, the official narrative is attempting to neutralize any public sympathy for the detainees by making serious accusations without providing independent documentation. Using terms like “affiliated elements” or attributing murder and weapons charges before a public and fair trial is more of an attempt to shape public opinion than to inform.

The real issue is not just a few arrests in one province; it is a structural issue in which political dissent is defined not as a civil right but as a security threat. In such a framework, critics become enemies and protests become crimes.

Years of repression, mass arrests, heavy sentences, and even deadly clashes with protesters have deepened the gap between society and the government. Every time the government beats the drum of security instead of listening to the people, it reinforces the message that it seeks its survival not in public consent, but in control and intimidation.

The reality is that despite all the pressure, the protests in Iran have not stopped. They have changed shape, they have dispersed, but they have not disappeared. This persistence shows that it is not simply a matter of external provocation or the activities of certain groups; rather, there is a deep-rooted dissatisfaction in parts of society that see themselves as unrepresentative within the power structure.

As long as freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and the right to peaceful protest are not recognized, the cycle of arrests and protests will continue. The label “monarchist” or any other security label may manage the media space for a while, but it cannot eliminate the main question: Why do some Iranians no longer accept this way of governing?

The answer to this question cannot be found in prison and repression. But what has been seen so far is the insistence on the same old path: "coercion instead of persuasion, intimidation instead of dialogue, and security instead of accepting the people's right to choose and protest."