
The Invisible City of Tehran
I still recall returning to Tehran in 1998, after more than two decades spent in London and New York. As the plane descended, I pressed my forehead to the window and saw the city of my birth splayed beneath me, vast and unfamiliar. It had multiplied since I had last seen it, not only in size but in identity. Tehran was no longer just the capital of Iran. It was now the beating heart of the Islamic Republic—the world's first fully realized theocracy, the product of a revolution that had yielded not more freedom or material prosperity, but less.
For several months in the late 1990s, I returned for both work and personal reasons. As I wandered the city, I felt a sense of both wonder and cautious belonging. I moved into a quiet, upper-middle-class neighborhood in the north—unflashy, orderly, lived-in. My neighbors were professionals: engineers, doctors, artists, middle-tier bureaucrats. Most were secular, or observed religion privately and with restraint. They loathed the regime's imposed piety. Inside their homes, they drank wine, hosted mixed-gender gatherings (these were illegal in the Islamic Republic), and listened to banned music. Private spaces were sanctuaries, zones of quiet resistance. But for Iranians they were part, I came to understand, of the visible city—the Tehran most people saw, most of the time.
From the October 1906 issue: New York after Paris
That visible city was more modern, more vibrant than I had expected. Parks and flower gardens, legacies of Persian landscaping genius, were scattered across the city—especially in the north. Unlike in New York, where I would never have entered Central Park after dark, Tehran's parks were well populated late into the night: families picnicking, children playing, couples strolling in the warm summer air. The streets were clean, well lit, and—traffic aside—surprisingly orderly. Tehran pulsed with activity.
At first, it was easy to believe that this was the whole of the city's life. I soon learned otherwise.
In the summer of 1999, during my second return visit to Tehran, I had my first encounter with what I now think of as the invisible city: a hidden infrastructure of control, secret spaces layered beneath the visible ones like the traces of ink on a palimpsest.
That July, students protested the closure of a reformist newspaper—one of a few outlets that dared to openly criticize the hard-line clerical establishment. Students from Tehran University poured into the streets, demanding greater openness and accountability. This was the first serious political challenge to the regime since the revolution, and the response was swift and brutal. Riot police, plainclothes agents, and members of the Basij, a paramilitary militia, stormed the dormitories. Protesters were beaten, arrested, disappeared. The head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps reportedly threatened to depose the reformist president, Mohammad Khatami. The city vibrated with anxiety.
One afternoon, I was standing with a recent acquaintance at a major downtown square, sipping fresh pomegranate juice, watching events unfold. Around us, people milled about—nervous, curious, suspended between ordinary life and political rupture. A minibus pulled up nearby, already half filled with arrested demonstrators. I made the mistake of looking too long. Within moments, I was yanked by the arm, shoved inside, blindfolded, and driven off.
That night, those of us who had been in that minibus were held in a military compound—unmarked, unnamed—somewhere in the capital. My acquaintance who had witnessed the abduction, it turned out, worked for a marginalized reformist faction within the Ministry of Intelligence. Even with his connections, it took him several days and the intervention of senior military officers to locate us. We were eventually released into the custody of his superiors, who brought us to his office, on the third floor of a building I had passed dozens of times. It had always appeared to be a quiet academic institute. I now learned that this was a front: an office run by the Ministry of Intelligence, disguised as a historical-research center.
That was my first initiation into the invisible city—the Tehran that doesn't show up on maps or official registries. It runs parallel to the ordinary one, yet wholly apart: embedded in unmarked buildings, accessed through back doors and side alleys, staffed by men with fake names, unsmiling and polite. It was the regime's city, hidden in plain sight.
Every city has its secrets. But in Tehran, the secrets are not incidental—they are structural. After that first arrest, and in the years that followed, I began to understand just how extensive the invisible city really was.
Some parts of it were what you might call 'visibly invisible': Everyone in Tehran knows about Evin Prison, perched on the edge of the Alborz foothills, its name spoken with dread and resignation. But almost no one knows what happens inside.
I spent long months there as a political prisoner, detained for my work on democracy and civil society. I was held in solitary confinement—23 hours a day in a small white cell, alone but for my jailer and my interrogator. Once a week, I was permitted a family visit. My wife, Bahar, and our 2-year-old daughter, Hasti, would meet me in a room arranged like a reception lounge—carpeted, with sofas, a potted plant or two, and cameras discreetly embedded in the walls. A performance of normalcy, under surveillance. Evin was the regime's theater of control, which it carefully lit and dimmed.
Only after my release in 2010 did the full topology of the invisible city begin to reveal itself to me—slowly, then all at once. Like Alice through the looking glass, I was ushered ever deeper into its passageways. I was no longer in Evin, but I was never quite free; I remained under watch, summoned to meetings, moved from place to place. The architecture of control was mundane on the surface. I would be told, with feigned casualness, 'Come on, pack up, let's go,' and soon find myself in an unmarked car, or on the back of a battered motorbike, taken to what they called a 'safe house'—not safe for me, of course, but shielded from view.
These places were embedded in perfectly ordinary buildings: apartment complexes, office towers, mid-range hotels. Their doors bore no signs, or else misleading ones: for a travel agency, a translation bureau, a small think tank. Once, I was flown to another city, checked into a standard business hotel, and led to a room that had been converted into a studio—lights, cameras, a backdrop—where political detainees were brought to record 'confessions.' Another time, I was taken to a back alley in northern Tehran, up a narrow flight of stairs, and into an unremarkable flat where an intelligence officer waited behind a desk, ready to resume our conversations.
The invisible city extended underground, metaphorically if not always literally. After the discovery of Hamas's extensive network of reinforced tunnels beneath Gaza—more than 350 miles long, nearly half the length of the New York City subway system, and built with extensive support from Iran—I couldn't help but imagine Tehran with its own network. Not of tunnels perhaps, but of whispered channels: mosques that doubled as surveillance nodes, schools and ministries laced with informants, entire office blocks that served the security state. A hidden circulatory system beneath the city's surface.
Not everything in the invisible city was overtly sinister. Some moments blurred the line between menace and civility. Once, one of my interrogators, a man with an incongruously gentle demeanor, stopped to buy a cold drink on the way to a meeting. At a small café, he chose a table out of view of the surveillance camera. 'Pull your cap down,' he murmured. A gesture of protocol? Paranoia? Or some strange performance of care? I still don't know.
The invisible city was not merely a place. It was a psychological condition, a way of moving through space in uncertainty and coded awareness. It was an alternate world with its own logic, rules, and rituals, always one breath beneath the surface of the city of ordinary life.
In January 2016, a few days after Iran and the United States signed the nuclear deal that would become known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, I stood in Tehran's Imam Khomeini International Airport, passport in hand, waiting to board my flight. It felt like the end of something: almost six years of surveillance, arrest, confinement, and conditional release. I was finally leaving.
My phone rang.
'Look to your left.'
There he was: one of the more polite and composed of the intelligence officers who had overseen my case. He had always struck me as thoughtful, almost sympathetic. I never learned his real name. That day, in plain clothes, he was unmistakable, his neat, collarless teal shirt peeking above his dark wool coat. He nodded and gestured for me to follow.
We walked back past the passport-control barrier, through a narrow side corridor, into a long, low-lit room where uniformed airport police sat at terminals. As we passed, one officer half-rose to stop us—then hesitated, recognizing my escort. He sat back down.
We returned to the terminal's public spaces, on the other side of the security barriers, which passengers aren't normally allowed to cross back through. There, another man waited on a bench: the most senior security officer I had encountered during my months under semi-carceral control. He told me he had come to personally supervise my departure. 'I hope,' he said evenly, 'you won't betray your country again.'
Then he smiled.
And just like that, I was back in the visible city, rolling down the runway, lifting off, seeing Tehran with my own eyes for what was likely the last time.
In some sense, the past 30 years of Iran's history—its repressions and rebellions, its suffocations and flickers of hope—can be understood as the continuous conflict between these two realms: the visible one of ordinary life, and the invisible one of revolutionary power.
One Tehran is filled with apartments and parks, evening picnics and bus rides, laughter and prayer and disappointment—the 'city of man,' in Augustine's sense, full of contradictions and grace. The other is cloaked in surveillance and menace, shaped by ideological certainty and fear, a city not of citizens but of instruments, organized for the will of their God.
When the brave young women of the Woman, Life, Freedom protest movement rose up in 2022, joined by young men willing to risk everything to stand beside them, they were demanding to live fully in a visible city: a city where women and girls could be present, not hidden, and where public space belonged to the living, not to the ghosts of revolution. The regime's response was immediate and categorical. It reasserted the dominance of its invisible, omnipresent apparatus with snipers, beatings, disappearances, and night raids.
The invisible city, by definition, was designed to remain unseen. But over the past few weeks, the Israeli air strikes in and around Tehran have made it impossible to ignore. Whatever one thinks of their legality or strategy, the strikes illuminated something long denied: a lattice of military, intelligence, and weapons infrastructure embedded in the civilian fabric of the city and the country. The bombs were flares briefly lighting up the hidden architecture of power.
In those flashes one could glimpse a parallel Tehran: IRGC commanders asleep in residential apartments; nuclear engineers moving discreetly across the city; weapons depots nested inside nondescript office blocks. Many of these men, knowing they might be hunted, rarely slept in the same apartment twice. They were shuttled from building to building, neighborhood to neighborhood, passing silently among unsuspecting neighbors, shadows in borrowed homes.
For a few seconds, the invisible city was visible: not metaphorically, but with terrible literalness. Then the fireballs receded and the shadows reabsorbed the light. The palimpsest was back.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
16 hours ago
- Fox News
NATO chief reveals why he dubbed Trump 'Daddy' during Middle East peace talks
At the latest NATO summit in the Netherlands, President Donald Trump walked away with an unexpected nickname, "Daddy," given to him by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Now, Rutte is explaining why he felt the U.S. Commander in Chief deserved the moniker. When Rutte initially made the comment, it came as a response to President Trump's heated remarks regarding the potential unraveling of the fragile Israel-Iran ceasefire. "Before President Trump went on the plane, the Israelis and Iranians had committed to a ceasefire," Rutte explained on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday. "Then that morning before he boarded that plane, they said, well, we might get at each other's throats again." Frustrated by the warring nations putting the ceasefire at risk, Trump made pointed remarks to both countries before leaving to attend the NATO summit. "We basically have two countries that have been fighting for so long and so hard that they don't know what the f--- they're doing," he told reporters shortly before departing for Europe. Trump discussed his disappointment with both Israel and Iran for resuming some level of fighting. The White House revealed he'd been in contact with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that morning. Later, during the NATO summit, Trump likened Israel and Iran to children brawling on a playground. Sitting beside him, Rutte chimed in with a now-viral phrase referring to Trump's disgruntled comments: "Then Daddy has to sometimes use strong language." Since those comments, the U.S.-brokered ceasefire has held. On his platform Truth Social, President Trump announced that Israel has since also agreed to a U.S.-led proposal for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, an effort that could lead to a larger peace in the region. Rutte defended Trump's hardline approach to peace in the Middle East. "History made you, President Trump, the leader of the U.S., the leader of the free world, to then basically say, 'Here's the red line. I don't accept it,'" Rutte said. The nickname didn't go unnoticed by White House staff, who later that day posted a social media montage of the president set to the Usher song "Daddy's Home." Rutte said he found the video amusing. "I was really taken by the after-movie the White House brought out," he said. "It was really funny."
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Poll: Just 22% of Americans believe Trump's claim that U.S. strikes have 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear program
Just 22% of Americans believe President Trump's claim that the recent U.S. airstrikes on Iran have 'completely and totally obliterated' that country's 'key nuclear facilities,' according to a new Yahoo/YouGov poll. And just 31% of Americans believe the U.S. attacks will ultimately do 'more good than harm' — while far more say the opposite (49%). The survey of 1,597 U.S. adults, which was conducted from June 26 to 30, shows serious public skepticism about the effectiveness of Trump's decision last month to drop more than a dozen bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites. (A third site, Isfahan, was struck by Tomahawk missiles.) Since then, the president and his allies have repeatedly insisted that the mission accomplished its objective: 'the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror," as Trump put it on June 22. But other reports have suggested that the Iranians might have moved their stash of enriched uranium before the strikes — and that the U.S. bombings left at least some of Tehran's nuclear program intact. Because Trump ran as a 'candidate of peace' who would keep the U.S. out of costly foreign wars, the aftermath of preemptively attacking Iran — whether the regime redoubles or reduces its nuclear efforts; whether it negotiates or lashes out — will determine whether Americans ultimately see Trump's unprecedented decision as a success or a failure. For now, the public is divided over the strikes themselves, with 41% of Americans saying they approve and 42% saying they disapprove. Approval is higher among Republicans (79%) than disapproval is among Democrats (71%) — but independents disapprove (50%) rather than approve (35%) by a 15-point margin. Likewise, 43% of Americans say Trump has "gone too far" in bombing Iranian nuclear sites, while 35% say his actions were about right, and 8% say he did not go far enough. Those numbers essentially match the approval-disapproval numbers above. At the same time, however, only 37% of Americans approve of the president's handling of 'the war between Israel and Iran,' while a full 54% disapprove. Why such a big gap? The new Yahoo/YouGov poll suggests that whatever Americans might think of the attacks themselves, they have questions about how we got here — and worries about what comes next. For starters, far more Americans say they approve (47%) than disapprove (25%) of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that 'dismantled much of its nuclear program and opened its facilities to more extensive international inspections in exchange for billions of dollars' worth of sanctions relief.' And far more disapprove (54%) than approve (20%) of the U.S. withdrawing from that deal during Trump's first term — after which Iran 'resumed its nuclear activities.' Meanwhile, only 39% of Americans believe the claim by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that launched the war: that Iran was on track to build a nuclear device "within months and certainly less than a year.' The rest are either not sure (35%) or do not believe Netanyahu (26%). And just 36% approve of Israel's own decision to attack 'key Iranian nuclear facilities' and assassinate 'several top Iranian nuclear scientists.' In other words, more Americans than not suspect that striking Iran might have been avoidable. Then there's the aftermath to contend with. Asked whether they think Iran is more or less likely to pursue a nuclear weapon now, after the U.S. airstrikes, just 12% of Americans say less likely. A far greater share say that pursuit is now more likely (44%) or about the same (30%). Similarly, just 17% of Americans say Iran is now more likely to agree to a new nuclear deal (which the Trump administration had been pushing); again, a far greater share say a new deal is either less likely (37%) or about the same (23%). As a result, a mere 19% of Americans say the strikes have made the U.S. safer, while more than twice as many think they've made the U.S. less safe (47%). Another quarter or so (22%) think the attacks have made no difference at all. Aside from questions about whether Trump's Iran strike was worth the risk, Americans seem to harbor doubts about whether it even did as much damage as he claims. On June 24, Reuters and other outlets reported on a preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment that determined the strikes had sealed off the entrances to two of Iran's key nuclear facilities but had not collapsed their underground buildings — an outcome that would set back Iran's nuclear program by only 'a few months.' The Trump administration has disputed this assessment, but when asked, Americans are more inclined to say they believe it (36%) than not (25%). Many (38%) remain unsure. Overall, just 30% of Americans think the strikes achieved Trump's stated objective of destroying Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and stopping Iran's nuclear threat — and even among those respondents, far more say the effect will be temporary (21%) rather than permanent (5%). __________________ The Yahoo survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,597 U.S. adults interviewed online from June 26 to 30, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 3.2%.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Mossad to Tehran: we already know your ‘secret' war commander
'We know exactly who he is and know him well. Unfortunately, such basic information is hidden from the Iranian people. Please send us your guesses about his name.' Israel's Mossad intensified its online campaign against Tehran on Tuesday, seizing on a Tasnim News Agency report that the Islamic Republic would not reveal the name of the newly appointed commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters and declaring on its Persian-language X account: 'We know exactly who he is and know him well. Unfortunately, such basic information is hidden from the Iranian people. Please send us your guesses about his name.' The Khatam al-Anbiya post—Mossad's second major tweet of the day—came minutes after Tasnim said the regime was withholding the commander's identity 'for his protection' following the killings of his two predecessors in Israeli strikes last month. Earlier on Tuesday, the same Mossad account asserted that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had 'surrendered' and approved negotiations with both the United States and Israel, calling the move 'the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic' and proclaiming that 'the countdown has begun.' The twin messages are the latest salvoes in a Farsi-language influence campaign Mossad launched last month. Initial posts mocked senior Iranian officials for secretly following the feed, offered VPN tips, and warned ordinary Iranians not to like or share content to avoid detection by security services. Iranian officials haven't acknowledged appointing a successor to the slain Maj.-Gen. Ali Shadmani. Khamenei, 86, last appeared on state television on June 26, vowing that Iran would 'never surrender,' a stance starkly at odds with Mossad's earlier claim.