SHAHLA MOHAMMED

NEWS CENTER – The "Countering Influence" bill in Iran is a controversial piece of legislation. Parliament approved its general principles last August, and it is still under discussion. This law faces opposition from the government and widespread international reservations due to the restrictions it imposes on civil society and scientific research.

The Iranian parliament discussed in its general session the "Countering Influence" bill, which imposes strict restrictions on civil society organizations, labor unions, the scientific community, and citizens' international connections by expanding the concepts of "espionage" and "cooperation with a foreign agent." To discuss the dimensions of this bill, its repercussions, and the political motives behind this legislation, our agency conducted the following dialogue with lawyer and expert in public international law Nireh Ansari.

Given your experience and knowledge in the legal field, what are the risks and consequences that this law or parliamentary decision poses to professors, researchers, students, and civil society organizations in Iran?

The "Countering Influence Plan" is a continuation of repressive practices. In its second article, it criminalizes any international scientific cooperation, starting from obtaining scholarships and study opportunities to publishing articles and participating in conferences, as "communication with a foreign entity." This measure has led to a state of uncertainty regarding students' academic future, and constitutes an obstacle to the country's scientific growth.

Among the concrete examples of the application of this policy is the closure of the language training center affiliated with the French Embassy on vague charges such as "projects hostile to culture" and "facilitating elite migration," even though the aforementioned plan is completely illegal from two legal aspects: (procedural objection) through the illegal review of this criminal plan by the National Security Committee instead of the Legal and Judicial Committee, in addition to (the illegal expansion of criminal titles). The definition of the crime of "espionage" is being irregularly expanded to the extent that it includes traditional media and educational behaviors.

Do the authorities succeed through these imposed security laws in completely isolating Iranian women, and cutting their independent scientific and social connections with modern knowledge and the outside world?

Merely speaking to a foreign media outlet is not a crime punishable by law. The structural flaws of the authorities lie in that, instead of defining "crime" scientifically, they resort directly to "punishment." In the "Countering Influence Plan," normal and customary behaviors were criminalized without clear definitions, which contradicts the principle of "transparency of the law" and the necessity of clarifying the material and moral elements of the crime.

In the field of women's rights, this discrimination is deeply rooted. According to international documents (such as Goal 4 of the 2030 Sustainable Development Document), education without discrimination is a fundamental right. Moreover, the politicization of educational activities and the criminalization of scientific interactions violates the "principle of legality of crime and punishment" and Article 36 of the Constitution. Terms such as "project against the prevailing culture" or "networking" are not defined in current laws. These terms allow security agencies freedom to suppress educational activities and isolate the scientific community from the world.

The bill also addresses the issue of "espionage" without distinguishing it from previous laws, which indicates the lack of legal expertise of its drafters in the National Security Committee. While the previous law "Intensifying the Penalty for Espionage and Cooperation with Hostile States" was approved with a focus on confrontation with Israel, the latest bill expands the scope of these provisions to include daily civil and scientific behavior, and stipulates harsh penalties such as imprisonment, confiscation of property, and even execution.

Alongside criminalization, the bill seeks to establish a mechanism for obtaining licenses for all foreign communications; which is impossible in the age of technology. Article Two of the bill also expands the scope of restrictions to include all fields, with the aim of cutting international communications. Accordingly, even procedures such as transferring money, receiving facilities, and granting powers of attorney to Iranian lawyers abroad are prohibited or subject to restrictions. This approach shows the disregard of the law's drafters for the fundamental principles of legislation.

How can civil society organizations legally protect themselves, in light of the expanding scope of security prosecutions and the criminalization of joint union activities and the exchange of professional expertise under the new "Countering Influence" plan?

The effective solution for civil society is to focus on the fundamental illegitimacy of this plan, because its failure to be reviewed by the specialized Legal and Judicial Committee violates legal procedures and makes it unapprovable. This decision also conflicts with many principles of the Constitution: restricting scientific exchanges contradicts Clause "B" of Principle Two (the use of human knowledge); establishing "permission-based" rules regarding fundamental rights (freedom of expression, movement, and assembly) violates the principle of citizens' freedom; delegating executive authorities to the Supreme National Security Council exceeds the accountability structure in the executive authority; and failing to observe the proportionality of crime and punishment (such as deprivation of work due to residence) involves a serious legal defect. Also, the vague criminalization of interviews with media outlets violates the transparency of the legislative process.

Ultimately, this plan lacks legitimacy, and violates the principle of fair trial, privacy, and international conventions that hold governments accountable even under customary international law. The best course of action is to challenge its illegal basis.