Iran’s parliament is seeking to turn fears of foreign infiltration into law, but the proposed legislation has exposed growing divisions over how far the Islamic Republic should go in controlling Iranians’ contacts with the outside world.
At the center of the debate is Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, who has publicly supported tougher measures against foreign infiltration while warning that the current version of the bill could go too far.
“A patriot does not oppose the fight against foreign infiltration,” Qalibaf said during a recent parliamentary session, while stressing that lawmakers must ensure that people’s “rights, lives and business activities” are not unnecessarily affected.
He said security agencies may need the ability to verify Iranians’ contacts with foreigners, but argued that requiring permission at every step would effectively isolate the country.
“They say they want to be sure, that permission should be sought from them at every step,” Qalibaf said. “This is not possible, because then we would have to completely isolate the country.”
Bill expands state control over foreign contacts
The proposed legislation was drafted as a wartime response to serious security failures. Iran’s two most recent wars have highlighted the extent of alleged Israeli intelligence penetration inside the country and prompted calls for tougher measures against foreign influence.
But what began as a response to a security concern has developed into a broader political dispute over the limits of state power.
Officially known as the “Plan to Combat the Infiltration of Foreign Intelligence Services and Governments or Institutions,” the legislation is commonly referred to as the “Infiltration Bill.”
Under the proposal, Iranians would have to obtain prior approval from the Ministry of Intelligence and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ intelligence organization before engaging in a broad range of activities.
These would include publishing books or articles, academic cooperation, interviews with foreign media outlets deemed “hostile,” and participation in scientific conferences or art festivals.
The bill would also criminalize interviews, discussions and other communications with media organizations considered hostile, as well as providing foreign media with photographs, videos, audio recordings or other material.
Violations could carry prison sentences of up to two years.
Parliament approved the bill’s general framework in mid-August by a vote of 183-4. Since then, the legislation has expanded from 19 to 33 articles as it has undergone review by the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.
Only the first two articles have so far been approved in a full parliamentary session, while the remaining provisions remain subject to changes. Even if Parliament approves the bill, it would still require approval by the Guardian Council before becoming law.
Qalibaf pushes back against key provisions
Political resistance has already emerged.
Qalibaf has returned two of the bill’s most important provisions — Articles 7 and 8 — to the committee for further review. They concern the disclosure of information and penalties for exceeding the limits of an authorization.
The speaker has insisted that Parliament must address the security agencies’ concerns, saying their “needs” should be met “within reasonable limits.”
At the same time, he has rejected the idea that the Ministry of Intelligence and the IRGC intelligence organization should effectively have the authority to approve Iranians’ contacts with foreigners at every stage.
He has also rejected suggestions that the bill should be abandoned at the government’s request.
When First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref claimed that Qalibaf had privately promised to halt the legislation, a lawmaker repeated the allegation during a parliamentary session. Qalibaf denied it, stressing that Parliament is not a “branch of the government.”
The dispute has produced political divisions that do not fit neatly into Iran’s traditional hard-line versus reformist divide.
Government and lawmakers raise concerns
Some lawmakers have openly opposed the legislation.
Mohammad Mehdi Shahriari, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, described the bill as “completely contrary to national interests.”
He argued that the legislation had been drafted too hastily by inexperienced lawmakers rather than by the state’s security institutions. He also suggested that the parliamentary leadership headed by Qalibaf was now strongly opposed to the bill.
President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government has also publicly criticized the proposal.
Hossein Afshin, vice president for science, technology and knowledge-based economy, warned that the current version could isolate Iran’s academic and research communities and lead to “stagnation in science.”
Conservative commentator Mohammad Mohajeri, editor of Khabar Online, made a similar point more sarcastically. Writing on X, he said that while the government was trying to persuade Iranians living abroad to return home, Parliament was giving elites, academics and students new reasons to leave.
UN warns of further restrictions
The proposed legislation has also attracted international criticism.
On September 3, the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran called for the bill to be withdrawn, warning that it could further restrict fundamental freedoms and isolate Iranians from the international community.
UN Special Rapporteur on Iran Mai Sato separately warned that Iranian intelligence agencies should not become the “gatekeepers” of the Iranian people’s contacts with the outside world.
For Iran’s political establishment, however, the debate is increasingly focused on a question closer to home.
Few within the system appear willing to dispute that foreign infiltration represents a genuine security threat. The growing disagreement is instead over what should follow from that threat — and where the state should draw the line between protecting national security and restricting ordinary contact with the outside world.
