Iran Is Focused on the Veil.

The fate of Iran's reformist government could turn on a controversial new hijab law.

By Sina Toossi, a senior nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy. FOREIGN POLICY.

Iran faces cascading challenges, ranging from the collapse of Bashar al-Assad in Syria to the weakening of its “axis of resistance” allies—Hezbollah and Hamas—and the specter of escalating U.S. hostility under a second Trump administration. And yet, its domestic politics are currently consumed by fierce infighting. Central to the turmoil are debates over a controversial mandatory hijab law—and Mohammad Javad Zarif, the country’s former foreign minister and current vice president for strategic affairs under reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, has become central to the controversy.

The Iranian parliament has become a battleground where allies of Saeed Jalili, the hard-line conservative candidate defeated by Pezeshkian in the June presidential election, are pressing for sweeping new penalties to enforce hijab wearing while targeting Zarif for removal. Zarif, a key architect of the 2015 nuclear deal and a symbol of reformist politics, has become a focal point in their efforts to weaken Pezeshkian.

The stakes for Pezeshkian could not be higher. Elected in a two-round race marked by record-low turnout—40 percent in the first round and 50 percent in the runoff—his narrow victory reflected not a wave of enthusiasm, but a fear of a hard-line takeover under Jalili. Pezeshkian ran on a platform of ambitious reform, pledging to end mandatory hijab enforcement, lift internet restrictions, and pursue diplomacy to ease Iran’s international isolation.

Yet his reformist vision has faced obstruction from conservative opponents determined to thwart his agenda. Nowhere is this more evident than in the new hijab law, which has emerged as a critical flash point.

While the proposed law would end the physical enforcement of mandatory hijab by the notorious “morality police,” it introduces harsh new punishments to criminalize unveiled women through fines, restricted access to essential services, and surveillance. If Pezeshkian fails to prevent its implementation, his credibility could suffer irreparable damage, deepening doubts about his ability to deliver meaningful change.

In the face of strong opposition, the future of Pezeshkian’s presidency—and the broader possibility of Iran adopting a more conciliatory approach to its nuclear program and regional policies—hangs in the balance.

Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, many Iranian women have fought for personal freedoms, including the right to choose their attire. These struggles have often resulted in imprisonment, job dismissals, and other severe penalties. The movement reached a critical juncture with the “Women, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022, which followed the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini’s in the custody of the morality police. These demonstrations marked a turning point as more women increasingly defied mandatory hijab laws, signaling a broader societal rejection of state-imposed dress codes.

In response, the government drafted a bill titled “Supporting the Family through Promoting the Culture of Chastity and Hijab.” Originally approved under former President Ebrahim Raisi, the bill gained momentum in September 2023, when parliament used Article 85 of the Iranian Constitution to fast-track it, bypassing open debate and allowing for a three-year trial period. However, the Guardian Council—a clerical body that oversees legislation—raised objections, leading to months of revisions.

But this month, Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced that the finalized version of the controversial bill would reach Pezeshkian by Dec. 13 for his stamp of approval. However, under parliamentary rules, his approval is not necessary—if he does not act within five days, the parliament can enact the law without him.

Yet, intriguingly, the law was not officially sent to Pezeshkian on Dec. 13.

Instead, Alireza Salimi, a member of the parliament’s presidium, announced on Dec. 14 that the Secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council had requested a delay in implementing the law. The secretariat’s letter cited ambiguities in the legislation and urged the government to propose amendments before moving forward. Despite this, conservative parliamentarians maintain to the press that the law could still proceed as planned by Dec. 21.

For now, Pezeshkian seems to have the upper hand, securing a delay as an opportunity to push for revisions. However, the law’s fate remains uncertain, with its sidelining far from guaranteed.

The law, spanning 74 articles across five chapters, introduces sweeping restrictions on personal behavior and institutional policies. It classifies unveiling or wearing immodest clothing in public or online as violations of cultural and religious values, punishable by fines ranging from approximately $100 to more than $4,000. Women who cannot pay face the loss of access to essential services.

Surveillance cameras and artificial intelligence systems will monitor compliance, with the public encouraged to report violations. Employers must enforce hijab observance among employees, and businesses promoting hijab-related products will receive government incentives. Meanwhile, those accused of “promoting” unveiling or cooperating with foreign actors to this end face long-term imprisonment.

The proposed hijab law has ignited a rare unity among critics across Iran’s political spectrum, with many issuing warning that it will deepen societal divides in an already turbulent time. Reformist leader Azar Mansouri, whose coalition was instrumental in electing Pezeshkian, condemned officials for disregarding public discontent.

Reflecting on the protests sparked by Mahsa Amini’s death, Mansouri remarked, “Society has moved forward, yet officials are pushing a law that risks further alienation.”

Grassroots opposition has also surged, fueled by platforms such as Karzar, a widely used online petition site that seeks to allow ordinary Iranians air their grievances. One petition, signed by more than 76,000 people as of Dec. 17, urged Pezeshkian to block the law, arguing that it violates fundamental rights, disproportionately criminalizes women, and threatens national unity.

Another petition, launched by a group calling itself the “Intellectual and Distinguished Women of the Nation,” attracted more than 63,000 signatures by Dec. 17. Addressed to both Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf, the petition argued that the Quran does not justify compulsion or punishment for noncompliance with hijab. The group demanded the immediate suspension and review of the legislation.

Prominent dissident voices have taken a strong stand against the law, denouncing it as a violation of fundamental rights. Human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh and Islamic scholar Sedigheh Vasmaghi did not mince words, calling the legislation “medieval” and a “ridiculous charade” that tramples on women’s rights and deepens societal divisions.

Zahra Rahnavard, a leader of the 2009 Green Movement and the wife of opposition figure Mir Hossein Mousavi, delivered a powerful rebuke in a statement published on Dec. 6, urging the government to abandon the law. “I advise the rulers not to wage war against women,” she declared, demanding an apology to the Iranian people for the “immense suffering, poverty, and anxiety” inflicted by decades of repressive policies.

Criticism has even emerged from within Iran’s clerical establishment. Ali-Mohammad Dastgheib, a former member of the Assembly of Experts, condemned the law as “un-Islamic,” arguing that “fines for violations have no religious justification.” Similarly, Mostafa Mohaghegh Damad, the head of the Islamic Studies Group at the Iranian Academy of Sciences, warned in an open letter that the legislation contradicts both Islamic teachings and basic human dignity, cautioning that it will further damage Iran’s global standing.

Meanwhile, Pezeshkian’s administration has been vocal in its opposition to the hijab law. The president himself has voiced reservations, citing ambiguities and a lack of readiness in government agencies to enforce it. “If we do not implement something properly, the situation will worsen,” he warned.

Sakineh Sadat Pad, the president’s advisor on social freedoms, called the law incompatible with “wisdom and reason.”

These sentiments were echoed by other prominent figures, including Ali Larijani, a senior advisor to the supreme leader, who warned, “A law that cannot convince society remains just words on paper,” emphasizing the disconnect between the legislation and public sentiment.

As the hijab law edges closer to implementation, it threatens to ignite a major showdown in Iran’s already volatile political and social landscape. For the country’s hard-liners, this legislation goes far beyond enforcing conservative values—it is a calculated strategy to tighten control at home through harsher crackdowns and intensified surveillance.

The hard-liners, emboldened by their interpretation of regional events, see the law as a litmus test for the regime’s strength. Drawing lessons from Assad’s downfall, they argue that the system must heed their demands to survive. For them, enforcing the hijab law and sidelining reformist figures such as Zarif are not just ideological imperatives—they are essential measures to preserve their grip on power.

However, the hard-liners’ strategy carries significant risks. By doubling down on ideological conformity and punishing dissent, they may further alienate large segments of the population, deepening societal divides and straining Iran’s capacity to navigate its volatile regional and domestic challenges.

At a moment when Iran faces mounting economic pressures and regional uncertainties, the hijab law threatens to ignite even greater unrest.

For Pezeshkian, the hijab law is more than a political challenge—it’s an existential test of his leadership. With his presidency hinging on delivering tangible reforms, failure to act risks strengthening hard-line opponents and jeopardizing his vision for Iran’s future.

If Pezeshkian’s reformist agenda is to succeed, it will require not just domestic resolve, but also a recalibration in how the international community engages with Iran. A more conciliatory U.S. approach—focused on diplomacy rather than reflexive hostility—could empower reformist voices and bolster his ability to enact change. Conversely, continued antagonism risks reinforcing the hard-liners’ position, undermining Pezeshkian’s efforts and pushing Iran further into repression and instability.

At this pivotal moment, the stakes extend beyond Iran’s borders, influencing the prospects for regional stability and meaningful diplomacy.