🩸 📖 🪢 ⛽ 🇮🇷 #2026082812 — He Quotes the Quran While the Gallows Stand Behind the State: Pezeshkian’s Interview Sounds Like a Government Reaching the End of the Road
The president speaks of truth, consultation, unity and mercy while describing gasoline shortages, sanctions, war, collapsing economic room and a state still executing those who challenge it.
🩸 RedBloodJournal.com — A Record. A Voice. A Purpose.
Masoud Pezeshkian’s August 28 interview may have been intended to reassure Iran.
Instead, it may have revealed something much larger.
For more than an hour, the president moves from war to peace, from the Strait of Hormuz to sanctions, from gasoline shortages to inflation, from government inefficiency to provincial autonomy, from public dissatisfaction to Quranic teaching.
Again and again, the same words return:
Unity.
Consultation.
Truth.
Dialogue.
Humility.
Service to the people.
And that is precisely where the interview becomes uncomfortable.
Because while Pezeshkian describes the principles by which a healthy Islamic government should supposedly operate, the government surrounding him increasingly appears to violate the principles he is invoking.
The contradiction is no longer hidden between the lines.
Pezeshkian himself puts it there.
The Interview Begins With an Admission: Iran Is Trying to Find a Way Out
The first question is simple:
Is Iran closer to war or peace?
Pezeshkian’s answer immediately moves toward negotiations.
He describes an extraordinary consensus inside the Supreme National Security Council. According to him, 12 of 13 participants supported a negotiated framework after discussions involving military commanders, government officials and other senior figures.
That matters.
A government confident that confrontation is succeeding does not normally spend the opening minutes of a presidential interview explaining how extensively its institutions have agreed on a pathway toward accommodation.
Pezeshkian then describes an arrangement involving the Strait of Hormuz, Oman, sanctions relief, oil, petrochemicals, frozen Iranian funds, foreign investment and regional commitments.
His formula is essentially reciprocal:
They do something.
Iran does something.
They honor the agreement.
Iran honors the agreement.
They reopen economic space.
Iran changes its behavior regarding Hormuz.
This does not sound like the language of a state triumphantly dictating terms.
It sounds like a government searching for oxygen.
The Strait of Hormuz Has Changed From a Threat Into a Negotiating Asset
For years, the Strait of Hormuz has been presented as one of Iran’s great strategic weapons.
Close the Strait.
Threaten global oil.
Make the world understand Iran cannot be isolated without consequences.
But listen carefully to Pezeshkian.
Hormuz is now described not simply as a weapon but as something to be negotiated, coordinated and potentially reopened within an agreed framework.
Iranian security officials, military figures, the IRGC and negotiators have all apparently been involved in developing that pathway.
The weapon has become a bargaining chip.
And bargaining chips are most valuable when the person holding them needs something in return.
Iran needs something in return.
Pezeshkian tells us what:
Oil sanctions relief.
Petrochemical sanctions relief.
Access to Iranian money.
Investment.
Banking access.
Trade.
Stability.
That is one of the most important admissions in the entire interview.
Then Comes the Sentence That Explains Almost Everything
When the interview turns to gasoline, Pezeshkian does not begin with prices.
He begins with war.
His message is essentially:
We must first accept that we are at war.
Routes are disrupted.
Imports are constrained.
Income has fallen.
Iran produces gasoline but must also purchase gasoline.
And even if transportation routes reopen, the country still requires enough money to buy what it needs.
That is the background to the proposed gasoline changes.
The headline circulating from the interview may therefore be:
10,000-toman gasoline.
But the bigger headline may be:
The president of Iran is explaining to the population why the state increasingly cannot afford the economic system it previously promised to maintain.
The 10,000-Toman Gasoline Admission
The interviewer repeatedly presses Pezeshkian for a direct answer.
Will gasoline prices increase?
When?
How much?
Eventually the answer emerges.
The government is considering increasing the price of the third gasoline quota — سهمیه سوم — to approximately 10,000 tomans per liter.
The existing subsidized quotas are described separately.
And Pezeshkian emphasizes that implementation has not yet been finalized because the government wants coordination with parliament, the judiciary, representatives and other authorities before proceeding.
Later he states that the increase for that third tier would be capped around 10,000 tomans and that the timing remains unresolved.
There is another revealing detail.
The interviewer tells him that people are already filling their tanks because they do not trust government assurances that there will be no gasoline surprise.
That may be even more important than the price itself.
A functioning government can survive an unpopular economic decision.
It becomes much more dangerous when citizens no longer believe the government’s promise about when that decision will happen.
The gasoline line is therefore not merely a fuel line.
It is a measurement of trust.
The Government Is Running Out of Easy Answers
Pezeshkian proposes many ways to reduce gasoline consumption.
Reduce the number of cars entering Tehran.
Move government employees closer to their workplaces.
Introduce days when employees do not drive.
Expand public transportation.
Import approximately 150,000 highly efficient vehicles.
Improve domestic automobiles.
Electrify taxis.
Electrify Snapp vehicles.
Bring in electric motorcycles.
Redesign traffic patterns.
Expand remote work.
Reduce government energy consumption.
None of these ideas is inherently irrational.
Some are quite reasonable.
But taken together they reveal something else:
There is no single solution left.
The government is looking everywhere.
Cars.
Motorcycles.
Offices.
Metro systems.
Teleworking.
Automakers.
Imports.
Provincial experimentation.
Consumption restrictions.
Pricing.
When a system must pull twenty different levers simultaneously just to keep supply and demand in balance, the problem is no longer one gasoline policy.
It is structural.
Pezeshkian Also Destroys One of the Regime’s Favorite Economic Narratives
For years, Iranian officials and supporters have sometimes minimized the importance of sanctions.
Poor management is the problem.
Sanctions do not matter.
Iran can resist indefinitely.
Pezeshkian essentially says otherwise.
He says imports and exports have fallen substantially.
He explicitly ridicules the idea that sanctions have no effect.
And when asked whether Iran should prioritize reducing tensions, expanding relations with the East, or removing sanctions, his answer is effectively:
All of them.
He then directly connects continued sanctions to higher prices.
That is extraordinary because it converts something long treated as political argument into presidential admission.
Iran needs sanctions relief.
Not eventually.
Economically.
Now.
The Earlier Agreement Apparently Demonstrated Why
Pezeshkian says that during the earlier period of agreement Iran exported nearly 90 million barrels of oil over a relatively short period.
He says banking restrictions eased.
Petrochemical restrictions eased.
Iran began receiving money.
Investment discussions began.
Then that environment deteriorated.
And he says plainly that Iran cannot currently export in the same way.
This is the economic skeleton beneath the diplomatic language.
The country does not merely prefer an agreement.
The state needs access.
Access to markets.
Access to money.
Access to investment.
Access to transportation routes.
Access to normal commerce.
The ideological language remains revolutionary.
The economic reality sounds increasingly conventional.
Iran needs the same circulatory system every modern state needs.
And Then Pezeshkian Begins Quoting the Quran
This is where the interview changes.
Pezeshkian repeatedly speaks about the Quran, unity, truth, ego and the obligations of leadership.
He argues that disagreement is connected to human ego.
He says truth does not belong to him or to another individual.
Truth exists independently.
People should bow before truth rather than demanding that everyone bow before them.
He speaks about prophets resolving differences.
He speaks about unity.
He speaks about serving people.
He speaks about consultation.
He essentially describes a moral government that should not confuse itself with truth.
Those are powerful words.
They would be powerful coming from any president.
Coming from the president of the Islamic Republic, they create a question that cannot simply be pushed aside:
What happens when the population disagrees with the government?
Where in the Quran Does Political Objection Become a Hanging Offense?
The Quran certainly contains severe punishments.
Quran 5:33 describes punishment for those who wage war against God and His Messenger and spread corruption in the land, including killing or crucifixion.
But look carefully at what the verse does not say.
It does not say:
Execute people who criticize the president.
Execute people who criticize the Supreme Leader.
Execute people who demonstrate against government policies.
Execute people because they reject the political system.
Execute people because they demand a different government.
Those conclusions require a state to take political or protest activity and legally transform it into concepts such as moharebeh — waging war against God — or corruption on earth.
That transformation is the issue.
The Quranic text and the government’s application of criminal law are not automatically the same thing.
The Quran Pezeshkian Quotes Contains Another Principle
Quran 42:38 praises those whose affairs are conducted through mutual consultation — shura.
Continue one verse further.
Quran 42:39 describes those who defend themselves when tyranny or oppression strikes them.
And 42:40 speaks of proportional response while praising forgiveness and reconciliation.
So the question becomes even more uncomfortable.
If Pezeshkian wishes to invoke the Quran as the moral foundation of political unity, then the public should be allowed to examine the entire moral relationship between the governed and the governing.
Not merely the verses useful to the state.
Meanwhile, the Gallows Are Not Theoretical
This is not an abstract philosophical argument.
Human Rights Watch reported in July 2026 that Iranian authorities had executed Mehdi Khanaki on July 22, describing him as the 24th known person arbitrarily executed since March 18 in connection with recent protests. HRW also reported at least 50 executions over four months on vague national-security charges and cited cases involving allegations such as “waging war on God.”
Amnesty International reported in May that at least 78 protesters, dissidents and others were under death sentences and at risk of execution, including people arrested in connection with the January 2026 protests. Amnesty characterized the death penalty as being weaponized to repress dissent.
These findings come from outside the Pezeshkian interview and should therefore be distinguished from what the interview itself establishes.
But once they are placed beside his words, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.
The president speaks about resolving disagreement.
The state criminalizes dissent.
The president says truth does not belong to him.
The state claims authority to determine when opposition becomes war against God.
The president speaks about consultation.
Political prisoners face revolutionary courts.
The president speaks about unity.
The gallows remain part of the political landscape.
The Problem Is Not That Pezeshkian Quotes the Quran
There is nothing strange about an Iranian president quoting the Quran.
The problem is much deeper.
He quotes principles that can be turned directly back toward the government he represents.
If truth exists independently from the ruler, then the ruler can be wrong.
If consultation is sacred, disagreement cannot automatically be treason.
If ego creates division, the government’s ego must also be examined.
If reconciliation is honorable, state violence cannot automatically be justified merely because the state labels its opponent dangerous.
If leaders exist to serve the population, then citizens are not servants of the state.
Pezeshkian’s theology accidentally becomes an interrogation of his own political system.
“Even Missiles and Bombs Are Useless”
One of Pezeshkian’s most remarkable observations comes when he talks about national unity.
Iran has inflation.
Economic problems.
Employment problems.
Many difficulties.
But he says cohesion is essential.
If that cohesion disappears, he says, even missiles and bombs become useless, pointing to countries that possessed enormous military capabilities yet still fell apart internally.
That may be the most important statement in the interview.
Because he is correct about the underlying principle.
Governments are ultimately sustained by something deeper than weapons.
Legitimacy.
Consent.
Belief.
Participation.
Trust.
A government can possess missiles while losing the population.
It can control television while losing credibility.
It can arrest dissenters while losing persuasion.
It can increase punishments while decreasing obedience.
And the more force necessary to manufacture unity, the less genuine the unity becomes.
Pezeshkian Appears to Understand the Problem
His repeated insistence on unity may itself tell us something.
Why say it again and again?
Why emphasize relations with neighbors?
Why emphasize dialogue?
Why emphasize provincial autonomy?
Why criticize centralized management?
Why insist that the president is not intellectually superior to everyone else?
Why ask experts to bring solutions?
Why admit sanctions matter?
Why acknowledge gasoline shortages?
Why acknowledge public economic hardship?
Why say government employees themselves cannot live comfortably on their salaries?
Why admit that the public fears a gasoline surprise?
Why insist that competitors such as Qalibaf and others must work together?
Because the old method is no longer producing enough answers.
The Central Government Is Even Questioning Centralization
Pezeshkian spends considerable time arguing that governors and local managers need more authority.
He says the president is not superior to everyone else.
Managers may have ideas he does not possess.
Forcing everyone to obey the president destroys creativity and social capital.
He goes further.
Iranian provinces often contain populations comparable to neighboring states.
Why should every operational decision come from Tehran?
Give governors authority.
Let people solve problems locally.
Allow experimentation.
If something works, expand it.
If it fails, reverse it.
Again, that is not a trivial administrative proposal.
It is an implicit criticism of the governing architecture created by the Islamic Republic itself.
Too centralized.
Too rigid.
Too bureaucratic.
Too slow.
Too politically controlled.
Pezeshkian is trying to loosen the machine while sitting inside it.
He Even Challenges Political Appointments
Pezeshkian says economics has specialists.
Industry has specialists.
Management has specialists.
He questions the logic of placing people into positions merely because they belong to the correct political network.
Management, he argues, is itself a discipline.
Again:
Why must a president of an established 47-year-old political system still explain that qualified people should manage specialized institutions?
The answer may be contained inside the question.
This Is Why the Interview Sounds Like a Dead End
A dead end does not necessarily mean collapse tomorrow.
It does not mean the state disappears next week.
It means the old road no longer leads where it promised.
Look at the contradictions Pezeshkian describes:
Iran must resist sanctions.
Iran desperately needs sanctions removed.
Iran threatens Hormuz.
Iran needs Hormuz functioning.
Iran promotes domestic automobile production.
Domestic automobiles consume too much gasoline.
Iran possesses enormous energy resources.
Iran struggles to supply affordable gasoline.
Iran preaches centralized revolutionary leadership.
Its president calls for decentralization.
The system claims ideological certainty.
Its president says nobody possesses absolute truth.
The state demands unity.
Its president acknowledges deep economic hardship.
The government invokes Islam.
Its courts continue imposing death sentences on dissidents and protesters.
The state presents negotiation as weakness when opponents do it.
Its own president repeatedly says negotiation is necessary.
Every exit seems to require contradicting something the system previously insisted upon.
That is what a political dead end looks like.
Not necessarily the absence of roads.
The realization that every available road requires abandoning part of the old map.
The Gasoline Price Is Therefore Not the Real Story
Ten-thousand-toman gasoline is important.
But it is one symptom.
The deeper story is that Iran is trying to reconcile an economic model, a security model, an ideological model and a governing model that increasingly collide with one another.
Subsidize gasoline — consumption explodes.
Raise gasoline prices — public anger rises.
Block imports — domestic production cannot fill every gap.
Open imports — foreign currency is needed.
Reject the West — sanctions constrain access.
Negotiate with the West — revolutionary legitimacy must explain compromise.
Centralize everything — government becomes inefficient.
Decentralize — the centralized state gives away power.
Suppress opposition — resentment grows.
Allow opposition — the system risks losing control.
Demand unity — citizens ask whether unity means agreement or obedience.
There is no painless option left.
The Most Revealing Sentence May Be the Simplest
Near the end, Pezeshkian returns to his governing philosophy.
He says, essentially:
I cannot fix the country. We can fix the country.
He emphasizes cooperation among former political competitors and repeatedly returns to unity as the prerequisite for solving everything.
That sounds admirable.
But Iran’s central problem may be hiding inside the word “we.”
Who is allowed to belong to “we”?
The president?
The Supreme Leader?
The IRGC?
Parliament?
Approved political factions?
Religious authorities?
Or the Iranian citizen who walks into the street and says:
I disagree with all of you?
Until the system answers that question, every speech about unity remains incomplete.
🩸 The Red Blood Perspective
Pezeshkian may genuinely believe many of the principles he expresses.
That makes the interview more significant, not less.
Because his words expose the distance between the government Iran claims to be and the government citizens experience.
He speaks of the Quran.
Then the Quran should be open to examination.
He speaks of consultation.
Then consultation must include disagreement.
He speaks of truth.
Then government cannot define itself as truth.
He speaks of humility.
Then political power must also be humble.
He speaks of national unity.
Then unity cannot simply mean silence.
He speaks of service to the people.
Then the people cannot simultaneously be treated as a threat whenever they reject those serving them.
The Islamic Republic’s greatest challenge may no longer be America.
It may not be Israel.
It may not even be sanctions.
It may be the contradiction between its own words and its own actions.
And Pezeshkian’s interview, perhaps unintentionally, puts those contradictions into one room.
War.
Gasoline.
Sanctions.
Inflation.
Negotiations.
Hormuz.
Executions.
Religion.
Centralization.
Distrust.
Unity.
A government searching for solutions in every direction while remaining trapped by the assumptions that built it.
That is why this interview does not sound like a government describing the road ahead.
It sounds like a government standing at the end of the old road and asking which part of itself it must change in order to turn around.
🌊 The Ocean of Love and Positivity Perspective
There is still something positive hidden inside even this contradiction.
Recognition comes before change.
A person cannot leave a dead end while insisting the road continues forever.
Neither can a society.
Pezeshkian’s interview contains admissions that would have been harder for the system to make when it still believed slogans alone could control reality.
Sanctions matter.
People are hurting.
Gasoline policy must change.
Government is too centralized.
Managers need freedom.
Experts matter.
Neighbors must be spoken with.
Enemies sometimes must be negotiated with.
No individual possesses all truth.
Unity cannot be created by missiles.
Those acknowledgments contain an opening.
Not because a government has suddenly become enlightened.
Because reality eventually teaches everyone.
Individuals.
Presidents.
Governments.
Civilizations.
The same lesson appears again and again:
Control is not strength.
Fear is not unity.
Silence is not agreement.
Obedience is not love.
And forcing another human being to bow never proves that the person standing above him possesses truth.
The deepest revolution therefore remains inward.
The ruler must question the desire to rule.
The citizen must question the desire for revenge.
The believer must distinguish God from the institution claiming to speak for God.
And every human being must examine the temptation to turn certainty into domination.
Perhaps that is where Iran eventually finds the road that politics cannot currently see.
Not through another gallows.
Not through another missile.
Not through another slogan.
But through the realization Pezeshkian himself almost reaches:
Truth does not belong to the ruler.
And once that is genuinely accepted, there is no longer any reason to fear the person who disagrees.
In an Ocean of Love and Positivity.
🩸🌊✨ Fantastic!
⚖️
The Dead End of Revolutionary Rhetoric
Aug 29, 2026
The source examines a significant interview given by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, highlighting the stark contradictions between his rhetoric of unity and the harsh realities of the state. While the president invokes Quranic principles of mercy, consultation, and truth, the analysis points out that the government continues to rely on political executions and the suppression of dissent. Economically, the text reveals a state in crisis, struggling with severe gasoline shortages, the crippling effects of sanctions, and a desperate need for international negotiations. Pezeshkian’s admissions regarding government inefficiency and the failure of centralized control suggest a leadership reaching a structural dead end. Ultimately, the source argues that the regime’s survival is threatened not just by external pressure, but by the widening gap between its religious ideals and its authoritarian actions.
#RedBloodJournal #Iran #Pezeshkian #MasoudPezeshkian #Quran #IranProtests #Executions #HumanRights #Gasoline #IranEconomy #IranSanctions #StraitOfHormuz #IranPolitics #IslamicRepublic #PoliticalRepression #Moharebeh #FreedomOfSpeech #NationalUnity #GovernmentCrisis #IranWar #RegimeCrisis #RegimeLegitimacy #MiddleEast #2026082812
