Iran’s Ambassador to India, Mohammad Fathali, has sought to reassure New Delhi and the Indian public that the situation in Iran remains under control despite ongoing protests, and that there is no specific threat to Indian citizens or Indian interests in the country.

His remarks came in an exclusive interview with ANI on Tuesday, a day after India’s Ministry of External Affairs issued a travel advisory urging Indian nationals to avoid non-essential travel to Iran in view of the volatile security environment, particularly in Tehran.

The envoy’s intervention appears aimed at balancing India’s precautionary approach with Tehran’s desire to project stability and to counter external narratives about the scale and nature of the unrest.

The Ministry of External Affairs, in its advisory, underlined that recent developments warranted a cautious stance and advised Indian nationals to defer all non-essential visits to the Islamic Republic of Iran until further notice.

This step reflects New Delhi’s standard practice of erring on the side of prudence whenever there is a risk of civil unrest, disruptions to public order, or potential threats to foreign nationals. It also signals that India is closely monitoring events on the ground and is prepared to update its guidance in response to any significant changes in the security situation.

In describing conditions inside Iran, Ambassador Fathali emphasised that public order is being maintained by the Iranian authorities, despite the wave of demonstrations that began in late December. He insisted that, from Tehran’s perspective, there is no direct danger to Indian citizens or to foreign communities more broadly, and that core state functions, including diplomatic, consular and economic activities, continue to operate normally. According to his account, daily life has not been paralysed nationwide, and essential services and institutions remain open, even as certain areas have seen unrest and sporadic confrontations.

The current protests erupted in Tehran on 28 December, driven by accumulated public frustration over Iran’s prolonged economic difficulties. Years of sanctions, domestic mismanagement, inflationary pressures, unemployment and currency depreciation have steadily eroded living standards for many Iranians. This discontent has now spilled onto the streets, with demonstrations that initially began as peaceful gatherings but have, in recent days, escalated into more intense and sometimes violent clashes in parts of the capital and potentially other cities. These developments have sharpened concerns among regional states and partners such as India, which have significant expatriate communities and economic linkages with Iran.

By reaffirming that “there is no threat to Indian citizens, like those of other countries residing in Iran”, Fathali appeared keen to allay the apprehensions of Indians either living in Iran or contemplating travel there for business, pilgrimage, or study. His statement implicitly recognises India’s sizeable diaspora presence and the importance Tehran attaches to not allowing domestic instability to affect foreign nationals. It also underscores Iran’s interest in maintaining its image as a state capable of managing internal dissent without letting it deteriorate into a broader security crisis with international ramifications.

The Ambassador also placed considerable emphasis on the Islamic Republic’s formal recognition of peaceful protest and public expression of grievances as lawful rights within its political system. By doing so, he sought to frame the current demonstrations as part of an accepted democratic space that exists in Iran, rather than as a fundamental challenge to state authority. He pointed out that Iran’s leadership, including the President, has publicly acknowledged the legitimacy of people voicing their demands and has stressed the need to hear and address these concerns through legal and civil channels, rather than through confrontation.

At the same time, Fathali drew a clear distinction between lawful protest and what he characterised as unrest and violence allegedly fuelled by foreign interference and biased media coverage. He accused certain external media organisations and foreign actors of deliberately exaggerating events and distorting realities on the ground. In his view, these outlets are amplifying selective narratives that magnify isolated incidents while underplaying broader stability, thereby contributing to a perception of crisis that, he argues, does not accurately reflect the overall situation across Iran.

The envoy asserted that a “significant portion” of the reporting in some international media does not correspond to facts as observed by Iranian authorities. According to him, this coverage is largely a product of exaggeration and media-driven narratives that are shaped by political agendas rather than objective journalism. From Tehran’s perspective, such portrayals risk fuelling further tensions, emboldening more radical elements within protests, and complicating efforts to resolve genuine socio-economic grievances through dialogue and reform.

In this context, Ambassador Fathali was particularly critical of public statements by United States leaders expressing support for the protesters. He framed such comments as clear interference in Iran’s internal affairs and as an attempt to instrumentalise a domestic issue for geopolitical and strategic ends. 

He argued that transforming Iran’s domestic challenges into tools of “political pressure and media warfare” contravenes the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention enshrined in international law. This argument is consistent with Iran’s long-standing narrative that external powers, especially the US, exploit any domestic unrest to weaken or isolate the Islamic Republic.

India’s own response, as articulated through the MEA advisory, is more narrowly focused on the safety and security of its citizens, avoiding commentary on the political dimensions of the protests. The advisory clearly instructs Indian nationals and Persons of Indian Origin currently in Iran to exercise heightened caution. It specifically warns them to stay away from areas where protests, demonstrations, or large public gatherings are taking place, given the potential for rapid escalation and the risk that foreigners could be inadvertently caught up in clashes or security operations.

The MEA has also urged Indians in Iran to monitor local news and to remain in close contact with official Indian channels. It advised them to follow updates from the Embassy of India in Tehran through its website and social media handles, which are likely to provide timely information on security developments, consular announcements and any changes in travel guidance. This reflects a standard consular risk-management approach, in which the primary focus is on situational awareness and rapid communication with citizens in potentially volatile environments.

A further element of the advisory relates to registration and consular readiness. Indian nationals residing in Iran on resident visas have been advised to ensure they are registered with the Indian Embassy if they have not already done so. Such registration enables the mission to maintain an accurate database of citizens in-country, which is critical for disseminating urgent advisories, extending consular assistance, or coordinating evacuation and relocation measures in the unlikely event of a major deterioration in the security environment.

The juxtaposition of Ambassador Fathali’s reassurances and the MEA’s cautious stance highlights the different priorities of the two governments. Iran is eager to project normalcy, emphasise state control, and counter narratives of instability that could discourage foreign engagement or investment or undermine its diplomatic standing. India, by contrast, has adopted a risk-averse posture centred squarely on citizen protection, consistent with its broader practice in other recent crises across West Asia and beyond. New Delhi’s approach allows it to remain engaged with Tehran while still signalling to Indian travellers and residents that their safety takes precedence.

From a bilateral perspective, both sides appear intent on avoiding any public diplomatic friction over the unrest. The Iranian Ambassador’s outreach to an Indian news agency suggests a desire to keep communication lines open, address concerns in real time, and prevent misperceptions from straining relations. India’s carefully worded advisory, which refrains from political judgement and confines itself to security considerations, indicates that New Delhi is not seeking to internationalise or politicise the protests, but rather to maintain a balanced and pragmatic posture amid a fluid situation.

For Indians currently in Iran, the emerging picture is one of cautious continuity. While protests and episodes of violence have been reported, particularly since late December, there is no indication at present of systematic targeting of foreign nationals. Nonetheless, the combination of public demonstrations, economic frustration and regional geopolitical tensions means that the situation could evolve, and both Tehran and New Delhi are implicitly acknowledging this by advising vigilance, preparedness and adherence to official guidance.

The Iranian Ambassador’s assurances, coupled with India’s advisory measures, reflect a dual-track response: Iran aims to reassure partners and push back against what it sees as hostile external narratives, while India seeks to mitigate risk for its citizens without entering into the broader political contestation surrounding Iran’s domestic dynamics. How this balance holds will depend on whether the protests subside through dialogue and economic stabilisation, or whether they intensify into a wider challenge to public order that could force both countries to adjust their messaging and measures in the weeks ahead.