Why Their First-Hand Reporting Matters — Two respected Times reporters (Catherine Philp and Jack Hill – photographer) have, based on first hand observations seen a slackening of the enforcement of the strange (to Westerners) ban on walking dogs in Iran. Here is a report on that development which is in parallel with a loosening of rules concerning the wearing of head scarfs.
The authorities seek to please the young in order to ensure that they stay in power.
1. Tehran ≠ the rest of Iran
Much of the recent crackdown on dog walking has been driven by local prosecutors in provincial cities — Ilam, Isfahan, Mashhad, Kerman, Hamedan, etc. These orders don’t always result in uniform enforcement nationwide.
Tehran, as the political and cultural centre, is often treated differently by authorities, especially when the regime wants to reduce tension.
So while the ban exists on paper everywhere, the practice in Tehran may indeed be more relaxed.
2. The regime is currently experimenting with selective toleration
Hill and Philp’s reporting aligns with a broader pattern: the Iranian state has been quietly allowing certain lifestyle freedoms in order to pacify the urban middle class and prevent renewed unrest.
That means:
- Police could enforce the ban
- But are effectively choosing not to
- And this non-enforcement is itself a political signal
Their first-hand witnessing of dog walking in Tehran is important evidence of a de facto loosening, even if the law remains unchanged.
3. Reality on the street often contradicts official pronouncements
Iran is a country where:
- A law may exist
- Enforcement depends on politics, not legality
- Enforcement changes week to week, neighbourhood to neighbourhood
This is why journalists physically present in Tehran often report a very different picture to legal or official sources.
4. The hijab situation follows exactly the same “dual reality”
Officially, hijab laws are still mandatory under the Chastity and Hijab Law.
Unofficially — especially in Tehran’s northern and central districts — enforcement is sporadic, sometimes absent.
This duality — legal rigidity, practical leniency — is exactly what the Times article was describing.
Why Their Account Is Probably Accurate for Tehran
Hill and Philp know the city, have deep experience covering Iran, and are trusted by The Times for precisely this sort of “street-level reality”. If they say:
“The long ban on dogs is not enforced.”
…it means that in their direct observation, Tehranis are openly walking dogs, and the morality police or Nahavaran units are simply not intervening.
Even when crackdowns occur elsewhere.
This is entirely consistent with:
- The regime’s desire to appease the young
- Avoiding confrontation in the capital
- Lowering the temperature after years of unrest
More: Iran
Why dog walking is banned:
In Iran, dog walking is illegal in many areas because the authorities treat dog ownership not simply as a private pastime but as a cultural and ideological issue. The ban stems from several intertwined factors: religious interpretation, social conservatism, and the state’s long-standing concern about Western cultural influence.
First, in traditional Shi’a Islamic jurisprudence, dogs are considered ritually impure. While this does not automatically forbid owning them, it has shaped attitudes among conservative clerics who view public dog walking as contrary to Islamic norms and public morality. This perspective has influenced Iranian lawmakers and prosecutors, especially in more traditional provinces.
Second, the government frames dog walking as a threat to public order and social values. Since the 1980s, the Islamic Republic has sought to cultivate a specific model of public behaviour, emphasising modesty and Islamic identity. Dogs — especially as urban pets — are often associated with Western lifestyles. Authorities have repeatedly argued that openly walking dogs promotes “Westernisation,” weakens moral discipline, and undermines cultural authenticity.
Third, the state sees lifestyle issues as part of a broader effort to maintain social control. Regulations on dress, conduct, music, and pets all form part of the same ideological project. By restricting dog walking, officials aim to enforce a vision of society aligned with conservative values and to limit public spaces becoming symbols of cultural liberalisation.
Although enforcement varies widely — especially in Tehran — the underlying reasons remain constant: dog walking is illegal because it sits at the crossroads of religion, ideology, and the state’s desire to regulate public life.
