Alireza Bozorgmehri, a former member of the Digital Economy Working Group at the Ministry of Economy, spoke with Peace Mark Monthly Magazine about the filtering environment in Iran and the obstacles to its removal. According to Bozorgmehri, until the composition of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace changes, there is little hope for the acceleration of the unblocking process in Iran. Bozorgmehri, whose managerial career began in 1995 as CEO and Chairman of the Board at Pasargad Rayaneh, believes that the council’s current structure is inefficient and flawed.

Among his significant managerial experiences, Bozorgmehri has been a member of the Supreme Council of Information Technology, the Organization for Industrial Development and Renovation, a senior consultant in planning and program control for the Iranian Information Technology Organization, a consultant to the head of AJA University of Medical Sciences, an advisor to the research deputy of the Iranian Army, a senior advisor to the Board of Directors of Behin-e Iran Company, and a member of the Digital Transformation Committees of the Industry and Mine Bank and the Export Development Bank. He holds a master’s degree in artificial intelligence and is currently on the board of directors of the Iranian Digital Transformation Association.

Below is the detailed conversation between Peace Mark Monthly Magazine and Alireza Bozorgmehri.

To begin, when did filtering in Iran first start?

It began with various restrictions right from the outset—starting with fax machines, which required special permits. That was many years ago. Then came restrictions on video players, satellite dishes, and so on, leading us to where we are today.

And these restrictions extend to cultural fields such as cinema, music, and painting. Yet, as we see, filtering and censorship haven’t yielded the intended results for their enforcers. What’s your view?

The results have definitely been ineffective. What these groups rely on is merely delaying access. Essentially, they slow things down—that’s all. Even with filtering today, the result is the same.

Who benefits from these delays? It must serve someone’s interests.

Delays make services more expensive. For example, a satellite device that costs around 400,000 tomans might, due to these delays, reach people for two million tomans. The difference between 400,000 and two million tomans creates a profit margin of 1.6 million tomans.

This is where the involvement of mafias comes into play.

In one of my articles, I wrote that when we talk about a financial turnover of 30 to 50 trillion tomans, it’s a frightening figure. Such a massive amount of money clearly points to phenomena like money laundering. No one can claim to sell VPNs legally through payment gateways, receive certifications, or open bank accounts to manage such enormous sums.

Here’s a simple question: how can a banking and payment system process 30 to 50 trillion tomans for a matter as obvious and well-known as this? This amount represents an extraordinarily high number of transactions. If the average monthly cost of a VPN or proxy is 100,000 tomans, the sheer volume of purchases needed to reach 30 trillion tomans is staggering. If the system can handle this level of money laundering in one area, imagine the scale of laundering it could facilitate in other sectors, such as drugs, arms, terrorism, or violent crimes.

Clearly, this is a mafia. The scale of money involved makes it irresistible to those in its shadow. Could these actors be inside the government or external to it?

According to a report by Forbes, approximately 20,000 Starlink devices are in use in Iran. This is a remarkable number in such a short period. Looking back, there was a time when VPN use was strictly prohibited for children because it provided unrestricted access to everything. Today, however, parents themselves ask their children to install VPNs. We’ve truly failed.

Here’s a simple question: when a project is clearly failing—assuming, for argument’s sake, that the decision to implement it was well-intentioned (though I dispute this reasoning)—and we see that its corrupt consequences outweigh its benefits, yet we stubbornly persist, we’re left with only two explanations: either ignorance or vested interest. Logically, it must be one or the other.

So this is about the shadowy, vested interests benefiting from filtering within the government’s security apparatus?

The body responsible for these decisions is a specific entity. I’ve repeatedly highlighted in my articles that certain individuals in the Supreme Council of Cyberspace insist on continuing this failed policy. Their decisions are detrimental—they’ve caused a range of negative consequences, from money laundering and widespread VPN usage to wasting national resources.

For example, when I use a VPN to send a message, my data is routed through international bandwidth. This adds to the cost of access, eliminates content control, and introduces other issues. If we’re aware of these problems yet persist, it signifies vested interests. Conversely, if we’re unaware, then what’s the justification for our presence in the Supreme Council of Cyberspace?

I’ve frequently called for the council’s composition to be reevaluated. Whether these individuals act out of ignorance or personal gain, they have no place in the council.

So, the council’s current composition is fundamentally unsuitable for its purpose.

Absolutely. Even in the worst-case scenario—assuming the initial intentions were valid—this project has not only failed but has also created countless issues. If we continue despite understanding its flaws, then vested interests are clearly at play. Otherwise, if we’re unaware, then we shouldn’t be in the council in the first place. This straightforward reasoning demonstrates that the council’s current composition is fundamentally flawed.

Is it reasonable to expect the new administration under Dr. Pezeshkian, which has pledged to remove filtering, to resolve this issue quickly?

Dr. Pezeshkian’s government has adopted “national unity” as its central slogan. It has paid a steep price for this approach. Some have labeled it in various ways, but I’ll stick with “unity.” If this government cannot deliver tangible and timely results—timely now means one to three months at most—then it risks creating public dissatisfaction.

The fact is, the majority of people—aside from a small minority who are either ignorant or benefiting—are unhappy with the current situation. If Dr. Pezeshkian cannot signal progress to a discontented public eager to believe in reform, he must reconsider his primary slogan.

So, expecting a swift implementation of promises is reasonable?

Yes, swift and decisive action is necessary. Interestingly, the Minister of Communications has stated that he has learned more from YouTube than from any university. This is absolutely true since YouTube is currently the world’s largest educational platform. However, by filtering YouTube, we deprive our people of this invaluable resource.

I doubt the sincerity of these policymakers. I don’t believe they consider how they’ll answer to God for the many lives they’ve affected. But I do believe some of these individuals are technology experts. If they claim not to understand the extensive harm caused by filtering, despite countless articles and seminars, one must conclude they are complicit in these schemes.

The filtering mafia seems like a reality they refuse to acknowledge.

It’s crystal clear. A financial turnover of 30 to 50 trillion tomans is no small matter, especially in today’s economic climate, where this figure is growing daily.

During your time at the Ministry of Economy, how seriously was the issue of filtering’s economic damage considered?

Dr. Hemmati is the only Minister of Economy who has delivered more than five speeches about the economic damages caused by filtering. I’m not even getting into its implications for communications, or its impact on civil rights, sociology, or psychology. But when the Minister of Economy raises the issue five times, the economic consequences and its negative effects on businesses become glaringly clear. Let me ask an interesting question: Do we actually intend to develop the digital economy? The digital economy cannot develop in isolation; economic growth requires interaction with other countries. When our handicrafts or domestic businesses are either absent or inadequately represented on international social media platforms, a portion of our GDP automatically diminishes. This is a simple calculation—basic arithmetic. In my opinion, security agencies must investigate why certain individuals, despite the significant harm they cause in areas like the economy, civil rights, reducing dissatisfaction, fostering national cohesion, and increasing social capital, remain in positions where they severely undermine all these aspects. People can’t simply act this way without reason. Logically, they are either ignorant, infiltrators, or partners in businesses tied to this issue.

That last option you mentioned is very concerning.

It is, but in fact, all three possibilities are extremely concerning.

Still, the idea of them being business partners is scarier because, given the circumstances and evidence, it seems the closest to reality.

I’ve been the project manager on numerous national projects in the country. I remember a time—during a period in the Presidential Office that I’d prefer not to specify—when certain individuals would meddle in national projects under the pretext of security issues, unjustifiably. Then they would suggest, “If you want this resolved, you need to make a deal with a particular ministry or contractor.” There were connections between those individuals and certain contractors.

Was Khatam Headquarters usually the main contractor?

I don’t want to name anyone.

We’ll name them for you.

I won’t confirm.

Given the current circumstances and the government’s will to lift filtering, along with the obstacles you’ve partially mentioned, how do you foresee the future?

More important than the government’s will is the will of technology itself. Time and again, we’ve been defeated by technology. Time and again, we’ve failed in censoring technology. From fax machines, VHS, and video players to satellite dishes, we’ve failed repeatedly and will continue to fail. This is not the right approach. Take Starlink, for instance—do you want to stop its user base from growing? Remove filtering.

So, are you saying that lifting filtering would render Starlink ineffective in Iran?

Let me ask you this: If filtering were removed today, would you purchase Starlink and bear its maintenance costs in dollars?

Probably not, because if we had access to those same services, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Exactly. It’s simple. There are certain platforms—like Telegram, Facebook, etc.—that are widely used globally and are essential to people. If these platforms are unblocked, how many people do you think would still want to buy VPNs? When you use a VPN, your phone battery drains faster, you pay higher monthly costs, your internet speed slows down, and your risks of phishing and security breaches increase. These are problems people endure out of necessity, not choice. Karl Popper, known as the father of legal theory, says, “A law ignored by the majority of the people is never legitimate.” You cannot create a law that criminalizes eighty million people, yet that’s precisely what’s been done. No matter how you look at the issue—legally, sociologically, economically, or from the perspectives of the digital economy and GDP, or even security—those in the Supreme Council of Cyberspace are acting against all these principles. What’s even more striking is that the majority of them align with the views of an individual who lost the election and wasn’t chosen by the people (even among the minority who participated in the election). Therefore, the composition of this council is nothing short of a blatant disregard for the people’s choice.

In essence, you’re saying this composition needs to change.

Absolutely, this composition must change. Beyond the issue of filtering, it’s evident and undeniable that this composition should be reformed.

So, can we conclude that national unity on lifting filtering is unattainable?

No, it’s not unattainable at all. In fact, if it were, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation today. However, I believe a great deal of effort, solidarity, and frankness is required. National unity does not mean allowing forces that act against society to continue operating. We can find unity with diverse perspectives, which is a positive and commendable goal, but not with those who are fundamentally against the public. For instance, in your neighborhood, you strive for harmony, but you wouldn’t seek unity with a drug trafficker. You seek unity with the healthy members of the community.

So this unity must be clearly defined, structured, and transparent, limited to those who respect the people’s votes and their will.

Exactly. Even those with a security-oriented mindset must correctly understand this. Currently, all evidence—from the rise in cyberattacks originating domestically (from national IPs) to the inability to control content, to the increase in phishing and money laundering—shows that the actions supported by some members of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace are counterproductive to security. Let me reiterate that figures like Mr. Pezeshkian, Dr. Hemmati, Dr. Sattar Hashemi, and many other dedicated individuals are making efforts. However, with the current composition of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, these efforts are exceedingly slow and difficult. Perhaps Dr. Pezeshkian needs to engage more with the leadership about forming a more appropriate composition for the council.

Thank you for taking the time to speak with Peace Mark Monthly Magazine and answering our questions. If there is anything you’d like to add, please feel free to do so.

I hope for a better future for our country—for all of us. Let’s hope reason and logic prevail in digital governance, enabling people to navigate these challenging economic conditions with some peace of mind.