Eurasia Press & News
The road to Iran’s freedom is paved with well-intentioned U.S. grants — but intent alone has never toppled a dictatorship. The Trump administration’s broad pause on foreign assistance includes a hold on funding distributed by the Near East Regional Democracy (NERD) program, which is aimed at supporting democracy in Iran. Established in 2009, NERD has prioritized initiatives like holding the regime accountable by exposing its human rights violations and corruption. NERD also provides Iranians with tools to circumvent the regime in Tehran’s efforts to block access to the internet. Since NERD’s inception, Congress has allocated over $600 million to these programs, with a $65 million request for fiscal year 2025, including at least $16.75 million for internet freedom efforts.
These initiatives are rooted in foundational democratic principles that hold undeniable significance for Americans and Iranians. Hence, critics contend that Trump’s decision to pause funding weakens Iran’s civil society and prospects for democratization. But the suspension may be a blessing in disguise if it forces a reckoning with the ineffectiveness of NERD efforts in Iran. Its projects focused on “exposing” the regime mistakenly assume that Iranians are unaware of its ongoing abuses, while calls for activists to “hold the regime accountable” perpetuate the illusion that the Islamic Republic can be reformed. Meanwhile, internet access programs also depend far too heavily on VPNs to provide Iranians with the means to circumvent censorship, ensuring lackluster results. While exposing the regime’s human rights violations and distributing VPNs are good things, these projects have struggled to achieve lasting impact.
Proponents of internet access funding cite the distribution of VPNs as a key achievement of these programs, arguing that cutting these programs limits Iranian access to unrestricted internet. While expanding unrestricted access remains crucial in principle, the regime’s ability to identify high-traffic VPNs and throttle the internet has constrained their effectiveness, highlighting the limits of its impact.
VPNs are rendered useless during full internet blackouts — precisely when they are needed most, such as during the November 2019 protests, when regime forces massacred 1,500 protesters under the cover of total digital darkness. Full blackouts carry steep economic costs, so authorities now employ targeted throttling of the internet in areas of unrest. But this is not enough for VPNs because connectivity still weakens to the point that VPNs become ineffective.
Furthermore, even in times of relative calm, the regime can detect and block VPN usage through Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), which analyzes data packets to identify and restrict encrypted traffic that deviates from normal patterns. High-traffic VPNs are especially vulnerable, as the government can block their servers and throttle connections to counter circumvention efforts. Consequently, VPNs that initially bypass censorship are quickly intercepted by the regime, turning the effort into a perpetual game of cat and mouse.
Alternative technologies, such as satellite-based internet services, offer a more robust solution, as they are not reliant on local infrastructure and can bypass governmental controls. Starlink, as one example, leverages low-orbit satellites to deliver internet access directly, even in the most restrictive environments. Many private foundations have facilitated smuggling it into Iran despite the logistical hurdles, and this technology already serves 100,000 Iranians — a number that is poised to grow.
Another recurring theme in NERD programs is support for awareness campaigns that seek to “expose” corruption and human rights violations. These initiatives operate under the flawed assumption that Iranians are unaware of their regime’s abuses and kleptocracy, but Iranians endure these abuses firsthand. Awareness alone does not spur action, and reminding Iranians of their suffering is only the first building block toward meaningful change. A truly effective program would extend beyond reiterating well-known grievances by providing tangible mechanisms for overcoming them.
The emphasis on exposure also raises fundamental questions about the NERD programs’ core objectives. Encouraging Iranians to expose regime atrocities in the name of “accountability” rests on the misguided premise that the Islamic Republic can be compelled to correct its wrongs through mere naming and shaming. This notion feeds into the regime’s own deceptive “reformist” narrative, which dilutes calls for regime change and steers activists toward the futile hope of a so-called “reformed” Islamic Republic.
Finally, NERD’s methods for distributing its funds skew our understanding of Iran’s political landscape. A stark example was the 2017-18 protests, which erupted not in Tehran but in the countryside and in working-class cities like Kermanshah and Mashhad. Many Iran analysts were caught off guard because funding and research had prioritized the capital and major urban centers. This imbalance persists today, as there is little oversight ensuring that resources are allocated across a diverse range of organizations with differing viewpoints, socio-economic constituencies, and networks. Although not formally designated as intelligence-gathering projects, these programs still inform U.S. policy on Iran by providing vital on-the-ground reporting. Any selection bias creates blind spots in Washington’s perception, distorting our understanding of Iran’s internal dynamics.
Capacity-building efforts that fail to further empower Iran’s vibrant civil society to meaningfully challenge the Islamic Republic’s authority amount to little more than empty gestures, while a program that does not contribute to regime change remains inconsequential. The true dilemma is not whether these initiatives should persist but whether they ever advanced U.S. foreign policy in a meaningful way in the first place.
None of this suggests Washington should cease supporting Iranian democratic aspirations. Rather, these objectives need to be pursued in a more impactful and cost-effective way that generates meaningful change in Iran. Should the Trump administration decide to pursue a maximum pressure strategy against the regime and maximum support for Iranians in parallel, these kinds of programs must be revitalized. A thorough review by the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office GAO should assess their effectiveness, with its findings carefully integrated to ensure that these initiatives are fully aligned with U.S. national security interests — which include the weakening of a regime in Tehran that sponsors terrorists, destabilizes the region, and is disturbingly far along on the path to nuclear weapons.
