On May 22, Iranian truck drivers initiated a coordinated strike in response to economic grievances. The strike has since expanded to over 105 cities across 27 provinces, including major hubs like Tehran, Isfahan, Kerman, Fars, Bushehr, Gilan, and Yazd.
Drivers are refusing to transport goods, disrupting internal supply chains. In multiple cities, videos and reports show halted cargo, paralyzed logistics, and government forces confronting strikers.
The immediate catalyst for the strike was the government’s plan to introduce a tiered diesel pricing system. Drivers have also raised concerns about reduced fuel quotas, rising insurance costs, and poor road conditions. While the protest originated as a sectoral response, it is now spreading through the logistics network and receiving increasing passive support from civilians.
Iran’s regime depends heavily on centralized control of infrastructure. Unlike pluralistic systems that can absorb disruption, the Islamic Republic maintains order through vertical command structures: fuel, freight, and food are tightly managed through a bureaucratic state network.
The trucking sector is central to that structure. Prolonged disruption impacts the distribution of goods, energy flow, and basic economic functionality.
The current strike has the potential to trigger cascading effects, particularly if it intersects with other sectors. Recent months have seen protests among energy and petrochemical workers, including those at the South Pars Phase 12 Refinery and the Iranian Offshore Oil Company in the Lavan Operational Zone, over issues such as unpaid wages and poor working conditions.
Iranian domestic instability
Iran's leadership is aware of the threat. On May 20, the Iranian Passive Defense Organization Supreme Council convened to coordinate protections for critical infrastructure, including energy facilities, amid concerns over potential US or Israeli strikes. The meeting’s attendees included senior defense officials and the oil minister, underscoring the strategic importance of the energy sector.
Despite these developments, Western policymakers are once again considering engagement with Tehran. EU officials continue to explore diplomatic channels, and US negotiations remain active.
This mirrors the 2013–2015 period, when Iran’s domestic instability was misread as justification for dialogue, culminating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That agreement released tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets and oil revenue, stabilizing the regime just as internal pressure was mounting.
Engaging now would repeat that mistake. It would provide the regime with resources, legitimacy, and time. It would signal to Iranian citizens that Western governments prioritize short-term diplomatic optics over long-term political outcomes.
It would undermine strike movements that are operating without foreign funding, political coordination, or international protection. Any reengagement would also risk undermining US and Israeli deterrence efforts at a time when Tehran is reportedly fortifying key nuclear and energy infrastructure in response to potential strikes.
Washington should not interfere in Iran’s internal dynamics. That includes avoiding actions, such as easing sanctions or restarting talks, that could prolong the regime’s operational stability.
The current unrest is not manufactured. It is a direct result of decades of economic mismanagement, corruption, and political repression. These conditions have produced a fragile system vulnerable to basic logistical disruption.
The correct posture now is strategic patience. The US should halt any form of re-engagement, direct or indirect. No side agreements. No prisoner swaps involving financial concessions. No unfreezing of funds.
The regime is internally weakened. It is facing simultaneous structural pressure in its transportation and energy systems. That pressure is homegrown. It should be allowed to continue without external interruption.
The US should also increase visibility on the regime’s vulnerabilities. That includes highlighting domestic unrest, naming officials involved in suppression, and reinforcing secondary sanctions on entities facilitating regime revenue. The goal is not escalation. It is insulation – insulating civil pressure from premature international relief.
These labor strikes are weakening the regime from within.
Not the time for rescue diplomacy
Meanwhile, Iran continues exporting 1.6 million barrels of oil daily through Chinese-backed shadow networks, neutralizing sanctions. European officials have warned the US that Iran is deliberately stalling nuclear talks to avoid snapback sanctions before their October expiration.
The US should not fall for this tactic again. This is not the time for rescue diplomacy. It is time to isolate, expose, and allow internal collapse to continue without interference.
If Washington chooses to reengage, it will own the consequences. That includes suppression of workers, consolidation of regime power, and potential prolongation of the Islamic Republic’s lifecycle. If it holds the line, it allows Iranian society the space to determine outcomes on its own terms.
Policy does not require noise. It requires clarity. Iran’s regime is vulnerable. The most strategic move is to do nothing that helps it recover.
The writer is an Iranian-American research professor and energy expert, as well as a political and human rights activist. @Aidin_FreeIran