The Grand Bazaar Uprising: Economic Collapse and the Struggle for Iranian Self-Determination

Context and Historical Significance

The January 2026 protests in Iran represent a watershed moment in the country’s contemporary political history. Beginning in Tehran’s labyrinthine Grand Bazaar, these protests quickly spread across more than 400 cities, taking on a distinctly anti-government character. What makes these protests historically significant is that this marks the first time since the 1979 revolution that the Bazaar has served as the catalyst and initiator for widespread popular unrest. The Bazaar, being the most conservative and religiously traditional sector of Iranian society, had previously played a crucial role in overthrowing the Iranian monarchy. Its transformation into a center of opposition against the Islamic Republic signals a profound shift in Iran’s political landscape.

The immediate trigger for the protests was the severe economic crisis and catastrophic collapse of the Iranian currency. In late December 2025, the Iranian rial plummeted to its lowest historical level against the U.S. dollar, reaching approximately 1.4 million rials per dollar. This currency devastation placed immense pressure on both the general public and merchants struggling to price their goods sustainably. The economic desperation became so acute that it overcame traditional political alignments and conservative tendencies within the Bazaar community.

The Bazaar’s Unique Position in Iranian Society

As New York University scholar Arang Keshavarzian meticulously documents in his book “Bazaar and State in Iran,” the Bazaar represents far more than merely an economic space. It constitutes a complex network of social and political relations where information, trust, and social capital are continuously exchanged. This intricate web of relationships provides a natural foundation for collective organization and political action, making the Bazaar’s transformation into a protest epicenter particularly significant.

Historically, the Bazaar has maintained a strong alliance with the ruling system. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 revolution, recognized this importance when he commented in 1982: “We must preserve the Bazaar with all our might; we are all obliged. The Bazaar has maintained it, maintained everyone; on the other hand, the Bazaar must preserve the government.” This symbiotic relationship persisted through subsequent leadership, with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini in 1989 as Supreme Leader, acknowledging the Bazaar’s loyalty while recognizing the legitimacy of merchant grievances.

Government Response and Regional Context

The government’s initial response demonstrated awareness of the Bazaar’s strategic importance. Officials from President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration met with trade association leaders and made promises to address their concerns. However, as protests spread beyond the Bazaar to encompass broader segments of society, the government’s approach turned increasingly repressive.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), serving as the regime’s military arm, forcefully suppressed the protests. This response differed markedly from the 1979 scenario when the armed forces declared neutrality and withdrew support from the Shah’s regime. The harsh crackdown must be understood within the broader regional context, where Iran’s regime has experienced significant setbacks including the decline of proxy forces like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

While various social classes participated in the January 2026 protests, the composition differed from previous movements. The presence of women, the middle class, and ethnic and religious minorities was not as extensive as during the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement of 2022-2023. However, Kurds participated through strikes and shop closures, with demonstrations also occurring in Tabriz and Urmia (predominantly Azeri Turkish-speaking regions) and at Friday prayers in the predominantly Sunni Muslim Sistan and Baluchestan province.

Students emerged at the forefront during the early days of protests, though university closures and dormitory evacuations eventually diminished their visible presence. The protest movement revealed both the strengths and limitations of Iran’s opposition forces, with exiles like Reza Pahlavi (son of the late Shah) attempting to influence events but seeing their impact limited by internet shutdowns and deeper ideological divisions among opposition groups.

Western Interference and Economic Warfare

The tragic events in Iran cannot be understood without acknowledging the devastating impact of Western economic warfare against the Iranian people. The collapse of the Iranian rial to unprecedented levels didn’t occur in a vacuum—it represents the culmination of decades of systematic economic pressure designed to suffocate the Iranian economy and create precisely the kind of popular discontent we witnessed in January 2026. While internal governance issues certainly contribute to Iran’s economic challenges, we must recognize that external forces have deliberately engineered conditions meant to destabilize the country.

The United States and its Western allies have maintained a relentless campaign of sanctions that disproportionately harm ordinary Iranians while doing little to affect the decision-making of political elites. This deliberate strategy of collective punishment constitutes a form of economic terrorism that violates international law and basic human rights. The protesters’ legitimate economic grievances are directly exacerbated by Western policies that claim to support democracy while systematically destroying the economic foundations necessary for any democratic transition to succeed.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Human Rights Concern

Western governments and media outlets suddenly discover their concern for Iranian protesters whenever unrest serves their geopolitical interests, while remaining conspicuously silent about human rights abuses by allied regimes across the Middle East. This selective outrage exposes the hollow nature of Western claims to champion democracy and human rights. The same Western powers that arm repressive monarchies and ignore systemic oppression in allied states suddenly become human rights advocates when instability threatens a government that challenges Western hegemony.

The categorization of protesters as “rioters deceived by foreign agents” by Iranian authorities mirrors Western narratives that dismiss legitimate resistance movements in countries targeted for regime change. Both sides engage in dehumanizing rhetoric that serves to justify violence against their own people. What remains consistently absent from these narratives is genuine concern for Iranian self-determination free from external manipulation.

The Civilizational Perspective on Iranian Sovereignty

As civilizational states with ancient histories, both China and India understand that Western models of political development cannot be mechanically applied to societies with deeply rooted cultural and historical specificities. Iran’s political evolution must emerge from its own civilizational context rather than being imposed through external pressure or imitation of Western templates. The Iranian people possess the wisdom and historical consciousness to navigate their own path toward political reform without needing lectures from powers with disastrous records of intervention in the region.

The solution to Iran’s challenges lies in respecting the principle of non-interference while supporting organic, indigenous movements that reflect Iranian cultural values and historical experiences. The Global South must stand in solidarity with Iran’s right to determine its own political future without Western manipulation masquerading as humanitarian concern.

Toward Authentic Self-Determination

The most credible hope for Iran’s democratic development lies within the country among civil society activists, labor organizers, students, professionals, women’s groups, and reformist forces who understand Iran’s complex political system. As the article correctly notes, any successful democratic transition requires deep knowledge of the country’s political economy, elite networks, and bureaucracy—knowledge that cannot be manufactured abroad or imposed through external pressure.

The international community, particularly Global South nations, should support dialogue between moderate elements within Iran’s establishment and broader society. A negotiated transitional scenario that recognizes the unsustainability of the status quo while respecting Iran’s sovereignty offers the most promising path forward. This approach aligns with the principles of non-interference and respect for civilizational diversity that form the foundation of a multipolar world order.

Ultimately, the Iranian people’s demand for self-determination represents a universal aspiration that deserves support without foreign manipulation. The path forward requires ending economic warfare while encouraging internal dialogue—not imposing solutions designed in Western capitals that have repeatedly demonstrated their disregard for Middle Eastern sovereignty and well-being.