Canada’s Blind Spot: Intra-Community Violence inside Canada’s Iranian Diaspora

After 18 months of public inquiry, the Foreign Interference Commission, commonly known as the Hogue Commission, published a report highlighting extensive patterns of foreign interference and transnational repression in Canada. The report underscored how certain ethnic communities have been actively targeted by foreign governments, including Iran, India, China, and, to a lesser extent, Russia. The Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force has highlighted the impact of transnational repression on electoral processes in Canada, notably in the case of Joe Tay, the Conservative Party candidate for Don Valley North in 2025.

Both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have become increasingly involved in investigating cases of transnational repression affecting ethnic communities, including the high-profile murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, British Columbia, in 2023. The report further contributed to the creation of the Office of the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner, responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act (FITAA).

The Government of Canada identifies Iran among the state actors conducting transnational repression in the country, citing assassination plots, harassment of dissidents, and digital threats. In 2026, against the backdrop of widespread domestic political protests and direct military hostilities involving the United States (US) and Israel, security scholars anticipate that pressure on diaspora communities will intensify, citing a documented pattern in which periods of domestic instability are followed by increased activity abroad. Analysts read this pattern as an attempt to mitigate internal vulnerabilities while extending diaspora coercion as a component of broader hybrid conflict with Western states.

At the margins of, and often overlooked within, discussions of transnational repression, violence and intimidation occurring within ethnic communities continue to take place in Canada and other Western countries. This form of violence remains understudied and frequently falls between the mandates of national security agencies and local law enforcement. Because this type of violence comprises transnational repression, hate crimes and incidents, and local crime, an overall understanding of the trends and comparative analysis between countries is difficult to establish.

This white paper uses open-source intelligence to document escalating patterns of physical violence, intimidation, activism, and online harassment within the Iranian diaspora following the January 2026 domestic protests and US-Israeli war against Iran which has been ongoing since February. By doing so, we further investigate Iranian diaspora fragmentation beyond the highly visible transnational repression, providing security and law enforcement agencies a better overall understanding of security dynamics in Canada. Furthermore, if experts forecast a growing threat to Iranian Canadians from the Iranian government through 2026, a more comprehensive understanding of intra-community tensions and patterns of polarization will be essential for accurately assessing risks and developing appropriate policy responses.

The Iranian Diaspora in Canada: Polarization and Fragmentation in 2026

Since January 2026, Canada’s Iranian diaspora has mobilized on a significant scale. Roughly 1,000 people rallied on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on 11 January, and an estimated 350,000 marched in Toronto on 14 February. While largely peaceful, these demonstrations highlighted growing ideological friction among different groups within the diaspora. Following the beginning of American and Israeli strikes on Iran in February 2026, also known as Operation “Epic Fury,” the Iranian diaspora in Canada became increasingly polarized. On 1 March, about 150 people gathered at City Hall in Calgary to oppose the American and Israeli strikes; an hour later, thousands filled the same plaza to celebrate them. The possibility of political transition, prompted by either domestic collapse or foreign intervention, has catalyzed intra-diaspora rivalry as competing groups seek to advance distinct political outcomes.

Political disagreement within Canada’s Iranian diaspora has hardened into a question of loyalty, dividing the community over foreign military intervention, the shape of a post-Republic Iran, and who counts as a legitimate opponent of the government. Since January 2026, street-level protests have largely split along two main axes: first, between monarchist (Pahlavist) demonstrators and those displaying pro-government or non-aligned symbols; and second, within the opposition itself, spanning monarchist right-wing groups, pro-democracy advocates, ethnic minority movements, and Mojahedin-aligned groups. 

The Pahlavists are the largest group in the 2026 mobilization. They support the return of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last shah. Within the broader pro-monarchy Pahlavi movement, a hardline nationalist element has increasingly asserted itself. This wing openly endorses more aggressive foreign policy measures against Tehran, including aligned Israeli-American military action, while displaying hostility toward political rivals in Canada and other Western countries. Pro-Pahlavi forces increasingly embrace hardline rhetoric, reflected in the chant “Death to the Three Corrupt: the Cleric, the Leftist, and the Mojahed.” The slogan groups leftist and Mojahed opposition movements together with the clerical establishment, portraying all three as equal targets of opposition. This extremist wing has expanded rapidly since January 2026, coordinating across social media and establishing a physical presence at demonstrations throughout Western Europe and North America. Some branches march in black shirts or tactical military-style dress, which has drawn controversy. This group often aligns with right-wing movements in Europe and North America and supports the American and Israeli strikes on Iran. It also polices its own side, rejecting supporters who would accept Pahlavi’s return as a civilian political figure rather than as monarch.

The second protest group consists of a loosely affiliated pro-democracy current, including republicans, anti-war activists, and those organizing under the 2022 slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom.” The slogan became the rallying cry of the nationwide protests that followed the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman, in September 2022, three days after her arrest by Iran’s Guidance Patrol over failing to wear her hijab according to state standards. For those in this camp, the slogan expresses a demand for women’s rights and personal freedoms. While these groups differ on the governance model for a future Iran, they share a rejection of both the Islamic Republic and a restored monarchy. However, monarchist activists often collapse these internal distinctions, framing diverse critics across this spectrum as leftists or Islamic Republic sympathizers. Politico reported in February that aides to Reza Pahlavi in the US had pushed supporters to remove references to the Woman, Life, Freedom slogan from their social media accounts on the grounds that it is associated with a leftist and feminist agenda. In a video circulated on social media of a demonstration in Vancouver in February 2026, organizers barred the slogan, while a man leading the demonstration stated through a megaphone that those chanting the slogan were connected to the reformist parties in Iran and were attempting to steal the revolution. Meanwhile, the pre-1979 Lion and Sun flag serves as a common visual thread across these protests, carried by both Pahlavists and pro-democracy activists. The emblem has deep roots in Iranian iconography and its meaning has shifted over time. Some trace it to ancient Persia and read it as a symbol of Iranian history before the arrival of Islam, while in other narratives it evolved after Islam, and particularly after the Safavids made Shi’ism the state religion in 1501, into a symbol of Iran’s national-religious identity, with the lion representing Ali ibn Abi Talib (the first Shia Imam). Because these layers of meaning long predate the Pahlavi dynasty, many who carry the flag see it as a symbol of historic Iran rather than as an endorsement of any particular political system, which allows groups with different visions for the country’s future to claim it.

The Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is the third main group opposed to the Islamic Republic. Often described as a pseudo-cult by Western experts, this group is organized as an opposition movement in long-standing mutual hostility with both the monarchists and the government in Tehran. The group carries its own version of the Lion and Sun flag, adopted by its political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), in 1993, which is distinguishable from the Pahlavist version by the absence of the crown. Although still the most organized group within the opposition diaspora, the MEK remains unpopular among Iranians because of its cult-like internal practices, its origins as an Islamist-Marxist militia, and its alliance with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The group’s presence at demonstrations is treated as a provocation by monarchists and government sympathizers alike, though since January 2026 it has kept a comparatively low profile in Canadian street mobilization.

Alongside general anti-Islamic Republic forces, various nationalist and ethno-regional groups have gained prominence within the Iranian diaspora, advocating for decentralization or state fragmentation in the event of government collapse. Ethnic minority groups, including Azeri, Arab, Kurdish, and Baluch movements, are pursuing distinct national rights, with demands spanning from regional federalism to outright independence. These platform positions put them in direct conflict with the centralizing nationalism of Pahlavist monarchists, other anti-Islamic Republic nationalists, and Islamic Republic supporters. Furthermore, several of these movements maintain cross-border ties with foreign governments, including Israel and Türkiye, as well as regional armed groups, such as Iraqi Kurdish forces. Carrying their own flags and chanting their own slogans, they are often targeted by other groups in protests.

Contrasting with anti-Islamic Republic forces, pro-government elements within the diaspora consist of individuals sympathetic to Iran’s current political system. At political demonstrations, display of the Islamic Republic flag generally signals alignment with Tehran, and this group routinely clashes with opposition groups at such events. The same emblem carries a different meaning in other settings, however, since it remains the current national flag and is carried at cultural and sporting events by Iranians who hold no brief for the government, a distinction that bears directly on several of the incidents described below.

Intra-Diaspora Conflict: Escalating Violence and Tension in 2026

Heightened polarization and rising internal divisions are increasingly linked to criminal incidents within the Iranian diaspora and its political mobilization in Canada. These activities remain difficult to address through traditional judicial channels, as the high degree of polarization complicates perpetrator identification and successful prosecution.

Such polarization has escalated into intra-diaspora violence. In February 2026, Masood Masjoody, a critic of both the Islamic Republic and the exiled Pahlavi family, disappeared in British Columbia. His remains were found the following month. Two Canadian residents were charged with first-degree murder. In April, the Washington Post reported that both accused had opposed the Iranian government and backed the monarchist movement in online posts, and that one was a defendant in a harassment suit Masjoody had filed before his death. Reuters later reported that Masjoody had himself belonged to the monarchist organization “Farashgard” before becoming a critic of it. In an interview in April 2025, Masjoody described being harassed for his views, saying that monarchist activists had threatened him without limits. Masjoody said that one threat specified the size and type of dagger and where it would strike, and that he had submitted this material to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Following a court appearance by the two accused, two groups of spectators confronted one another outside the Vancouver courthouse and were separated by sheriffs.

Days after Masjoody disappeared, ten diaspora figures, most of them critics of the monarchist campaign or of the war, were tagged in a post on X which read, in Farsi and beneath a knife emoji, that they would soon have to find the corpses of many. The account was named for SAVAK, the pre-1979 Iranian security service, and has since been deactivated. At least two of those tagged reported the post to police and altered their routines. In July, a Greater Toronto Area resident publicly called on Iranians inside Iran to add a lethal agricultural chemical to food served at a public funeral, drawing condemnation from voices in the diaspora. Although directed at events in Iran, the statement was made publicly from Canada by a resident and no public action by Canadian authorities has followed. In March, Toronto Police arrested two counter-demonstrators at the Al-Quds Day rally following a clash between pro-Islamic Republic and anti-Islamic Republic protesters. One of the accused allegedly tore an Islamic Republic flag from a participant’s back and later set one alight; his charges include public incitement of hatred. Toronto Police stated that both investigations were being treated as suspected hate-motivated offences. At a monarchist demonstration in downtown Toronto in January, a man who had argued with participants was struck in the face and injured in the eye. Video that circulated afterwards shows a participant defending the assault on the grounds that he had insulted them. At demonstrations in Vancouver, supporters of the MEK and monarchist demonstrators have gathered in close proximity and entered into sustained confrontation. In June 2026, the City of Toronto had to suspend the public screening of the World Cup match between Iran and Belgium because of public safety concerns related to the demonstrations and increased risks of confrontations between pro-Islamic Republic and anti-Islamic Republic protesters. FIFA prohibited the Iranian pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun flag from World Cup stadiums in May. Tensions have occasionally manifested in threats or acts of physical violence targeting pro-democracy activists, government sympathizers, and ethno-national groups such as Azerbaijani, Arab, Kurd, and Baluch representatives. Those who decline to display the expected Lion and Sun flag or repeat the expected slogan are increasingly treated not as opponents but as collaborators. Polarization within the diaspora has increased drastically in everyday life as well. A boycott campaign has circulated online naming Iranian businesses in Toronto as being affiliated with or supporting the Islamic Republic, including bakeries, restaurants, supermarkets, and currency exchanges. Harassment between monarchist activists and their critics has also increased, and Iranian-Canadian academics and journalists in Toronto describe receiving repeated death threats, rape threats, and doxxing over the same period. On 12 April, sustained sexualized abuse directed at family members was exchanged between the two sides at a rally in Toronto.

Parallel Dynamics in the United States and United Kingdom

These dynamics extend well beyond Canada. Over the same timeframe, comparable clashes involving the same groups have emerged across the broader West, notably in the US and the United Kingdom (UK). This widespread incidence points to a systemic, transnational pattern of diaspora fragmentation and intra-community conflict, and underlines the challenges facing law-enforcement agencies in Canada.

In the US, on 11 January, a rental truck approached a Pahlavist demonstration in the Westwood district of Los Angeles, California, carrying a banner that read “No Shah. No Regime. USA: Don’t Repeat 1953. No Mullah,” a message rejecting both the monarchy and the Islamic Republic. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, demonstrators tore the banner from the truck, smashed its windows, and assaulted the driver, who then drove through the crowd. The driver was arrested for reckless driving and later released without charge.

In March, an Iranian opposition activist outside the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas was told by Pahlavi supporters that she would be run over with a truck if she did not chant “Javid Shah.”^[1] In June, during Iran’s opening World Cup match in Los Angeles, stadium officials had to break up a fight in the stands between Pahlavi supporters and people who carried Iran’s current flag. Outside the stadium, videos circulated showing an elderly Iranian woman, as well as other people trying to enter or leave the stadium, being harassed by Pahlavi supporters for not carrying the Lion and Sun flag.

In the UK, Pahlavi supporters have targeted ethnic minority Iranians and anti-war demonstrators, treating those who oppose the American and Israeli military campaign against Iran as complicit with the Islamic Republic. In March, following an attack on a Kurdish-owned restaurant in London, Dilovan Emadaldin, the UK correspondent for Kurdistan24, was seriously injured by a group of roughly fifteen monarchist supporters while reporting on the incident. The Metropolitan Police opened an investigation into what witnesses described as part of a wider pattern of attacks on Kurdish businesses and individuals. In April, Mohammed Reza, an Iranian demonstrating against the war outside Downing Street, was stabbed several times by a counter-protester of Iranian origin and survived. He had previously been abused in public, and other anti-war Iranians in the UK reported threats of stabbing from the monarchist side at demonstrations.

Beyond Transnational Repression: Jurisdictional Challenges

Existing scholarship on transnational repression has focused primarily on state-directed activities targeting dissidents, while paying comparatively little attention to coercive and violent dynamics occurring within diaspora communities. Transnational repression is now seen as a matter of national security in relation to foreign interference. Violence between diaspora members falls outside this scope when it is not sponsored and supported directly by foreign governments.

Intra-community violence is a more complex process involving genuine political activism as well as organized criminality and foreign interference. Political activism such as protests can turn into political intimidation and violence aimed at silencing part of ethnic communities which, in turn, leads to social polarization. Canada has seen intra-community political violence before. Examples include the confrontations at Eritrean community events in Toronto and Edmonton, and the inward-directed incidents that have accompanied India’s Khalistani question. In each instance, the conduct was handled as public disorder or as a matter of foreign interference rather than as diaspora politics in its own right. This threat is not specific to Canada and occurs in most Western countries.

In Canada, the RCMP is the primary agency responsible for investigating threats to national security, including foreign interference as defined under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Transnational repression, including threats directed at diaspora communities, falls within this mandate. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and CSIS also play important roles in investigating transnational repression activities and identifying foreign operatives acting on Canadian soil.

By contrast, intimidation, violence at protests, and threats exchanged between members of diaspora communities generally fall within the jurisdiction of local law enforcement agencies. A useful parallel can be drawn with the distinction between terrorist activities, which fall under the mandate of RCMP Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams (INSETs), and hate crimes that are not linked to broader extremist ideologies or organized groups, which are typically investigated by local police services.

These manifestations of diaspora polarization are further complicated by the fact that violence occurs within a broader context of political activism directed against the government in Tehran, which Canada has long criticized on human rights grounds. Canadian policy seeks simultaneously to protect freedoms of expression and assembly at home and to sustain that criticism abroad. The Iranian case presents a distinct set of challenges compared to other cases of foreign interference in Canada, such as those involving India, because intra-community tensions are intertwined with a broader political movement that receives considerable public sympathy and support within Canadian society.

As a result, investigative attention is often directed toward transnational repression, while patterns of intra-ethnic polarization receive comparatively limited scrutiny as a distinct phenomenon. Rather than being analyzed collectively, such incidents are generally treated as discrete criminal acts perpetrated by individuals, agent provocateurs, or criminal organizations. In a July 2026 interview with Reuters, Reza Pahlavi attributed some of the conduct carried out in his name to plants and agitators masquerading as supporters in order to create such conflicts. Such rhetoric further blurs the line between state-sponsored foreign interference and localized diaspora violence, interweaving local, national, transnational, and geopolitical dynamics.

While intra-diaspora political polarization is well-documented, institutional blind spots regarding its intersection with state-backed foreign interference leave diaspora members acutely vulnerable. Victims often find it difficult to report these politically motivated acts, as the political and ideological nuances surrounding such incidents can complicate their interpretation by both community members and law enforcement agencies. Consequently, these incidents may be underreported or investigated as isolated criminal acts rather than as part of broader patterns of intra-ethnic polarization. In the UK, activist Ghazal Diani reported threats to London’s Metropolitan Police and was told the matter would be investigated only if something more serious occurred.

Politically motivated intimidation within these communities occupies an ambiguous legal space, straddling national security mandates, hate crime enforcement, and conventional criminal law. This jurisdictional overlap complicates local law enforcement responses and creates significant reporting barriers, hindering the systematic tracking and prosecution of intra-community violence. Furthermore, investigations related to transnational repression often require extensive international cooperation, as segments of the Iranian diaspora are active across multiple Western countries. Effective investigations also depend on access to Persian-language expertise, trusted relationships within diaspora communities, and a nuanced understanding of community dynamics. At the law enforcement level, this requires keeping pace with rapidly evolving political tensions and polarization within the diaspora, as well as broader geopolitical developments. At the national security level, a key challenge is sharing highly classified information with local law enforcement partners in ways that support investigations while protecting sensitive sources and methods. This is particularly important when distinguishing between criminal activities stemming from community polarization and actions directed or supported by a foreign state. Authorities must also recognize that investigations and interventions within diaspora communities can have unintended consequences. If not approached carefully, they may deepen existing divisions, reinforce perceptions of stigmatization, and inadvertently strengthen narratives that portray Western governments as targeting Iranian communities.

Recommendations and Implications for Canada

Violence within diaspora communities presents a significant challenge that Canada’s existing security and law-enforcement categories were not designed to capture as effectively as threats to national security. It does not neatly fit the framework of transnational repression and foreign interference, as much of the violence is neither directed nor coordinated by a foreign state. Nor is it adequately understood as conventional hate crime or violent extremism, particularly when perpetrators and victims may share the same nationality, ethnic identity, or religious affiliation. Yet the consequences of this violence are distinctly transnational and political, often intersecting with mobilization and protests against the Islamic Republic of Iran. When agencies assess these incidents only through the lens of their individual mandates, the broader pattern can remain invisible. The result is a fragmented response that risks overlooking victims, underestimating the scale of the threat, and failing to address the political and transnational dimensions of the violence.

Although it can sometimes fit within the framework of politically motivated violent extremism, intra-community violence presents distinct analytical challenges. It may be interpreted differently from forms of violent extremism occurring between distinct communities, such as the tensions and violence observed between Canada’s Palestinian and Jewish communities following October 2023. Because perpetrators and victims may share the same ethnic, religious, or national identity, the political and ideological motivations underlying the violence can be more difficult to identify and may be overlooked within existing threat-assessment frameworks. For example, Public Safety Canada has funded multiple programs to address polarization between Arab and Jewish diasporas, but very few are designed for violence inside a single community.

Prevention and enforcement efforts in diaspora communities often lack dedicated language expertise and the capacity to monitor increased activity across multiple platforms, including Telegram, Instagram, X, diaspora media, and encrypted channels. These gaps are particularly consequential during periods of heightened political mobilization, when emerging vulnerabilities and risks can develop rapidly and require early intervention. Hate-based incidents are rarely the product of a single organization or network; rather, they can emerge in protests and other political activities and involve loosely connected actors. Yet these incidents can reflect broader transnational trends, with narratives, tactics, and grievances circulating across borders and becoming mutually reinforcing. Effective prevention therefore requires heightened monitoring during periods of political mobilization, combined with stronger language and analytical capabilities to identify emerging risks upstream and distinguish isolated incidents from broader patterns of mobilization and violence. Risks often first emerge through seemingly isolated episodes of hate and intimidation online or during protests, including doxxing, sexualized threats, the circulation of target lists, and other forms of targeted harassment. A concrete public safety response should be sufficiently flexible to address a threat that does not fit neatly within existing frameworks for transnational repression, foreign interference, or countering violent extremism. It should enable authorities to monitor large-scale protests and political mobilization as well as social media where violence occurs within communities and movements, rather than primarily between them. This requires the capacity to identify early indicators of hate and escalation across multiple platforms, supported by language-specific expertise. It should also allow authorities to connect local episodes of violence to broader transnational trends without assuming that such trends reflect hierarchical command structures or formal organizational links.

Interagency Collaboration: A Coordinated Approach to Hate Incident Reporting and Threat Assessment

In an ideal scenario, dedicated task forces could be established to foster sustained collaboration among relevant agencies. A more realistic and immediately actionable approach, however, would be to strengthen information-sharing mechanisms and reinforce referral pathways between agencies. Law enforcement agencies often lack the broader visibility needed to identify trends and linkages across incidents occurring elsewhere in Canada and in other Western countries. Enhanced information sharing could help bridge this gap by connecting local, incident-level intelligence with broader assessments of emerging threats and extremist activity.

One promising model is the increasingly effective coordination between local law enforcement agencies investigating hate crimes motivated by Islamophobia, antisemitism, and racism on the one hand, and national security agencies addressing hate-based groups and far-right extremism on the other. Current efforts to address nihilistic violent extremism at the local, national, and international levels provide another useful model to adapt. Existing collaboration between agencies has long been developed to identify concrete threats to national security, requiring the involvement of INSET units in Canada, as distinct from localized crimes to be investigated and prosecuted by local law enforcement and prosecutors. These partnerships have also included intervention and prevention teams established to address vulnerabilities and risk factors associated with radicalization leading to violence.

The case of intra-diaspora violence appears more complex to address, as the national security threat environment combines far-right extremism, hate-based ideologies, foreign interference, and transnational repression. At the local level, violence and criminality can unfold across a range of settings, including large public protests, mass gatherings associated with sporting events, and Middle East-related events such as Al-Quds events or those linked to the war in Palestine. At the same time, the Criminal Code provisions on uttering threats, criminal harassment, intimidation, and public incitement of hatred cover most of the incidents documented in this paper, and the charges laid by Toronto Police following the Al-Quds Day rally demonstrate their applicability.

Local law enforcement should remain responsible for receiving and investigating individual hate incidents and criminal offences, while national-level agencies could provide broader threat assessments, identify cross-jurisdictional patterns, and facilitate the sharing of relevant intelligence. The RCMP plays a central role in cross-jurisdictional investigations, as well as in establishing sustained operational partnerships with other intelligence and investigative bodies, such as CSIS and CBSA, alongside broader strategic coordination by Public Safety Canada tracking these incidents. The transnational nature of the threat also requires greater coordination among Five Eyes partners, alongside carefully calibrated information-sharing arrangements with foreign governments. This is particularly important when engaging the United States, given its direct and ongoing military confrontation with Iran.

Strengthening Outreach and Trust with the Iranian Diaspora

Given that the threat environment remains fluid and is heavily influenced by geopolitical developments, interagency communication should not be treated as an ad hoc or event-driven process. Instead, it should be structured as a recurring mechanism, with regular exchanges of information and threat assessments that allow agencies to identify emerging patterns, reassess risks, and adjust their responses as circumstances evolve.

Outreach mechanisms targeting the Iranian diaspora have already been developed to address concerns related to transnational repression, but these efforts could be expanded to better capture dynamics of intra-diaspora violence. A reliable referral mechanism could enable members of the diaspora to report hate incidents at both the local and national levels, while providing law enforcement agencies with the contextual information needed to assess individual incidents within broader patterns. Such reporting mechanisms are effectively implemented for transnational repression, but are ill-equipped for intra-diaspora polarization.

At the same time, the highly polarized and politically contested nature of these issues creates a risk that referral mechanisms could be exploited for partisan or strategic purposes, including through the submission of unsubstantiated or politically motivated allegations. Any such mechanism should therefore incorporate robust, evidence-based safeguards. Reports should be assessed against consistent criteria, corroborated where possible, and clearly distinguished between verified incidents, credible allegations, and unsubstantiated claims.

Implementing an incident-reporting mechanism is easier than sustaining one effectively. Its long-term success depends on local authorities earning the trust of the community, while also demonstrating the capacity to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute reported cases. Without both community confidence and credible follow-through, reporting mechanisms risk generating limited engagement and may fail to provide the sustained information needed to identify broader patterns and trends.

Conclusion

Overall, intra-diaspora violence is not a new phenomenon. Existing interagency coordination mechanisms can address many of its manifestations effectively. The central challenge, however, is that such violence is often identified only after incidents have occurred, resulting in a predominantly reactive rather than proactive response. This report has documented recent incidents, their increasing intensity, and their transnational dimensions to raise awareness of the need for a more coordinated approach building on existing transnational repression outreach and prevention activities as well as existing mechanisms developed to address violent extremism.

In a multicultural society, the test of a security policy is whether it protects citizens from violence within their own communities as carefully as it protects them from foreign states, and whether it can do so without treating an entire community as suspect. This approach is not specific to Iranian communities. The same combination of early detection, behaviour-based intervention, and restraint is applicable wherever political conflicts abroad divide communities at home, as has occurred among Eritrean, Sikh, and other diaspora communities in Canada. A framework developed to address these challenges in the Iranian diaspora could therefore provide a broader model for identifying and mitigating community-based political violence without stigmatizing legitimate political activity.

^[1] Meaning long live the King, a slogan popular among the Pahlavists and royalists.

• Share on Facebook
• Follow on X
• View on LinkedIn