Australia has barred thousands of Iranian nationals with valid tourist visas from entering the country for the next six months, a move that has drawn strong criticism from refugee advocates and opposition figures.

Get today's headlines by email

The decision was announced by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, who activated newly expanded immigration powers to temporarily suspend entry for Iranian visitors amid concerns about the escalating situation in Iran.

The restriction applies to roughly 6,800 Iranian citizens holding valid tourist visas who are currently outside Australia. Some travellers may still be granted entry under special circumstances.

Government cites migration control concerns

Burke said the measure was necessary to ensure that long-term residency decisions remain deliberate government policy rather than the unintended result of short-term travel.

“There are many visitor visas which were issued before the conflict in Iran which may not have been issued if they were applied for now,” Burke said.

“Decisions about permanent stays in Australia should be deliberate decisions of the government, not a random consequence of who had booked a holiday.”

The temporary order will last six months and must be renewed if authorities wish to keep it in place. Officials said the government will continue to monitor global developments and adjust migration policies if necessary.

The ban only applies to people holding tourist visas, commonly known as subclass 600 visas, who are currently outside the country.

Limited exemptions available

Authorities said some exemptions could apply. Iranian parents of Australian citizens may receive “sympathetic consideration”, while others may request permission to travel through a special certificate process.

Government figures indicate that more than 7,200 temporary visa holders are currently inside Iran, with more than 40,000 temporary visa holders located across the wider region affected by the conflict.

However, the current restriction targets only tourist visa holders.

Strong criticism from advocates and politicians

The decision has prompted criticism from refugee groups and some lawmakers, who argue it unfairly affects people who followed legal immigration procedures.

Nos Hosseini of the Iranian Women’s Association said the community had hoped for compassion during a period of uncertainty.

“As a community, we are grieving. We are under immense stress, and this was not the type of announcement we were expecting to hear,” she said.

Independent MP Zali Steggall warned the government’s expanded powers risk undermining confidence in Australia’s migration system.

“Thousands of people who followed the rules, paid fees, and made plans in good faith are being left in limbo,” she said.

David Shoebridge, a senator from the Greens party, also criticised the government, accusing it of abandoning Iranian citizens despite publicly expressing concern about conditions inside the country.

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre described the move as a “massive betrayal” and a “breathtaking moral failure”.

Earlier asylum cases

The visa decision follows a recent case involving members of Iran’s women’s football team who travelled to Australia earlier this month. Seven players were initially granted asylum offers, although five later chose to return to Iran while two remain in Australia.

Officials say the temporary entry restrictions will remain under review as the government monitors developments in the region.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 26 March 2026

View full article

Finally, a country being proactive against a country that thinks it OK to interfere with international trade via terroism.

“There are many visitor visas which were issued before the conflict in Iran which may not have been issued if they were applied for now,” Burke said.

Well, if that's the case then reassess them!

This is an utterly disgraceful and inhumane decision. It’s hard to believe the same ban would ever be imposed on Israelis, who by the way, were the instigators of this war.

Too little too late.

The extremists are already in Australia in significant numbers as we saw at Bondi when they murdered all those Jews

Too bad for Australia - it was nice knowing you

KhunLA did you read OP it is Iranians they are blocking not USA, Israel.

6 hours ago, Danny Australia said:

This is an utterly disgraceful and inhumane decision. It’s hard to believe the same ban would ever be imposed on Israelis, who by the way, were the instigators of this war.

You rather Iran have a nuclear bomb or are you a muslim?

Should kick out all existing muslims. No problems in Japan.

On 3/26/2026 at 5:51 AM, KhunLA said:

Finally, a country being proactive against a country that thinks it OK to interfere with international trade via terroism.

Under which rock are you living?! Nothing Iran is doing right now hasn’t been done to them before by Israel and the US!. They’ve been <deleted> over Iran since day one and now they’re finally getting what they deserve. You’re just either too blinded to see that!

24 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Under which rock are you living?! Nothing Iran is doing right now hasn’t been done to them before by Israel and the US!. They’ve been <deleted> over Iran since day one and now they’re finally getting what they deserve. You’re just either too blinded to see that!

So 2 wrongs do make a right ... got it.

Iran has supplied & support terrorism for decade. Stopping or just slowing that down a wee bit is a good thing.

I would like to see Israel not exist, so don't think I'm a fan of them. I left the USA, so nuff said there.

Let's just deal with today, as history is just that ... history.

Australia has the right to deny entry to anyone it pleases with a bit of luck they will extend it to Israel & the USA.

My, my, my. Australia is a racist nation.

Boot out the thousands a Gazan/ Palestinians that the piss weak government allowed in as well.

22 hours ago, koolkarl said:

You rather Iran have a nuclear bomb or are you a muslim?

Indeed, I would rather have Iran possess a nuclear weapon, as that may be the only method to subdue this terrorist entity called Israel from continuing to create havoc in the Middle East and, in fact, all over the world, as we have seen from the Epstein files.

Didn't australia try to kidnap those Iranian footballers?

1 hour ago, Danny Australia said:

Indeed, I would rather have Iran possess a nuclear weapon, as that may be the only method to subdue this terrorist entity called Israel from continuing to create havoc in the Middle East and, in fact, all over the world, as we have seen from the Epstein files.

Incredible comment. You are a hardcore antisemite.

On 3/27/2026 at 9:56 AM, KhunLA said:

So 2 wrongs do make a right ... got it.

Iran has supplied & support terrorism for decade. Stopping or just slowing that down a wee bit is a good thing.

I would like to see Israel not exist, so don't think I'm a fan of them. I left the USA, so nuff said there.

Let's just deal with today, as history is just that ... history.

Well, it seems like you didn't go back far enough in history because there's a reason why Iran does/has done that and it's fairly legitimate in my book. They're just reacting!

3 hours ago, koolkarl said:

Incredible comment. You are a hardcore antisemite.

Newsflash: most Israelis are either of Sephardic or Ashkenazi heritage, which means they're of Spanish or Eastern European ancestry and therefore they're are NOT semites and therefore nothing you can say about them is antisemitic!

Also, and I can't stress enough how key this is, just because someone criticizes the actions of Israel doesn't make that comment automatically anti-semitic!!!

In regards to the guy saying it would be a good thing for Iran to have a nuke to protect themselves from Israel, he's ABSOLUTELY right about that because it's the ultimate deterrent! Whether you can see that doesn't change the fact one bit! Everything that's been going on down there can be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of Israel, the UK and the Americans. It very much seems like you'll need a proper history lesson on that!

4 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Well, it seems like you didn't go back far enough in history because there's a reason why Iran does/has done that and it's fairly legitimate in my book. They're just reacting!

Killing people is legitimate ... whoa, that's a new one.

8 hours ago, koolkarl said:

Incredible comment. You are a hardcore antisemite.

And you are a sick little puppy

P

20 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Killing people is legitimate ... whoa, that's a new one.

Well, if they start killing your people first and you retaliate then that's legitimate.....

Here's a little history lesson:

“Next time someone says that Iran is dangerous and they need to be stopped…here’s some history to share.

————————

1901: A British businessman secures exclusive rights to Iran’s oil. Iran gets almost nothing from its own resource.

1908: Oil is struck. Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is formed. It later becomes BP. The British Royal Navy converts from coal to oil, making Iranian petroleum a strategic military asset for the British Empire.

For the next 50 years, Iran’s oil is extracted by a foreign corporation. Iran receives a fraction of the profits. Saudi Arabia negotiates a 50-50 profit split with ARAMCO. Iran asks for the same terms. Britain refuses.

————————-

1951: Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalizes Iran’s oil through a unanimous vote in parliament. Completely legal. Completely constitutional. His argument was simple: this is our oil.

Britain responds with an international blockade. No negotiation. No compromise. They want their oil back.

1953: The CIA (Operation Ajax) and MI6 (Operation Boot) overthrow Mossadegh. They bribe politicians, clerics, journalists, and military officers. They fund fake protests. They run disinformation campaigns through newspapers they secretly own. MI6 operatives kidnap and murder Iran’s chief of police and dump his body in public as a warning.

They reinstall the Shah — a monarch who serves Western oil interests. The CIA officially acknowledged its role in 2013.

—————————-

After the coup, BP retains a 40% stake. American oil companies including Exxon and Mobil get significant shares. Iran’s democratic government is gone. Its oil is back under foreign control.

1953-1979: The Shah rules for 26 years as a Western-backed authoritarian. His secret police, SAVAK, is trained by the CIA and Mossad. SAVAK tortures and kills political dissidents systematically. Iran becomes one of the largest purchasers of American weapons. The Shah lives in extraordinary luxury while much of the population remains poor.

During this entire period, Israel and Iran are close allies. SAVAK and Mossad share intelligence. Israel sells weapons to Iran. Nobody in the West calls Iran a “terrorist state” because the dictator is their dictator.

1979: The Iranian people overthrow the Shah in a popular revolution. This is where your list begins — as if the revolution appeared out of nowhere, motivated by nothing but religious fanaticism.

———————————-

Now let’s talk about the US embassy that was attacked.

The US news likes to paint the 1979 hostage crisis as an unprovoked attack on America. The revolutionaries seized the embassy because the last time there was a democratic movement in Iran, the CIA ran the coup to crush it from that same embassy. They weren’t being paranoid. They were being historically accurate.

Britannica’s own assessment: “It is generally agreed today that the 1953 coup sowed the seeds for the Islamic Revolution of 1979.”

That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s the encyclopedia.

——————————-

Now let’s ask a couple more questions.

Why are there U.S. military bases in Iraq? Because the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 on claims of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be false. Over a million Iraqi civilians died. No American official was ever prosecuted.

Why is there conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon? Because Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years.

Why are Houthi rebels attacking ships? Because a U.S.-backed Saudi coalition bombed Yemen for years, creating what the UN called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Over 150,000 dead. Famine. Cholera outbreaks.

Why does Iran pursue nuclear capability?

Possibly because Israel has an undeclared nuclear arsenal estimated at 80-400 warheads, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, faces zero international inspections, and has never been sanctioned for it.

Iran signed the NPT. Iran agreed to inspections. Iran signed the nuclear deal in 2015. The U.S. pulled out of that deal in 2018.

Every single item on your list is framed as Iranian aggression against “the West.” But none of them exist without the West’s 70-year campaign of overthrowing Iran’s democracy, installing a dictator, extracting its oil, arming its neighbors, invading the countries on its borders, and maintaining military bases throughout the region.

Now trace who benefits.

The 1953 coup was about oil. BP and American oil companies got the oil.

The Shah’s 26-year reign was about strategic positioning. The U.S. and Israel got a compliant ally on the Soviet border and in the Middle East.

The post-1979 framing of Iran as a “terrorist state” serves a specific function: it justifies permanent U.S. military presence in the Middle East, billions in annual arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, and unconditional U.S. support for Israel’s regional dominance.

Every “Iranian attack” on your list occurred in a country where the U.S. had no legal right to be in the first place — Iraq, Syria, Jordan. American troops are stationed across the Middle East not because those countries asked for protection from Iran, but because the U.S. positioned itself there to control the region’s resources and protect its strategic architecture.

—————————

When someone punches you for 70 years — overthrows your government, installs a dictator, trains his secret police to torture your people, extracts your oil, invades the countries on your borders, surrounds you with military bases, and sanctions your economy into the ground — and then you punch back, the question isn’t “why are you violent?”

The question is: who threw the first punch? And who’s been profiting from the fight ever since?

That’s not a defense of the Iranian regime. The theocracy that replaced the Shah has its own record of brutality against its own people, especially women. But that regime exists because the CIA destroyed Iran’s democracy in 1953. The West created the conditions for the very thing it now claims to oppose.

——————————

The history continues.

HAMAS (October 7, 2023)

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” said Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, to the Wall Street Journal in 2009.

Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, who served as Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s, told the New York Times that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the PLO. “The Israeli government gave me a budget,” the retired brigadier general confessed, “and the military government gives to the mosques

Initially, Hamas was discreetly supported by Israel, as a counter-balance to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization to prevent the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

And it didn’t stop in the 1980s. According to the New York Times, Israeli intelligence agents traveled into Gaza with a Qatari official carrying suitcases filled with cash to disperse money.

In 2015, Bezalel Smotrich, currently the finance minister in Netanyahu’s government, summed up the strategy: “The Palestinian Authority is a burden. Hamas is an asset.”

Netanyahu told journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority. Having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu penned a letter to Qatar in 2018 asking the Qatari leadership to continue funding Hamas.

——————————-

HEZBOLLAH (1983 Beirut bombings, kidnappings):

Hezbollah was formed in 1982 — the same year Israel invaded Lebanon. It didn’t exist before the invasion. Israel invaded Lebanon to destroy the PLO headquarters there. The invasion killed approximately 20,000 people, mostly civilians. Hezbollah was born as a direct resistance movement to that invasion.

The 1983 Marine barracks bombing on the commenter’s list killed 241 Americans. But why were U.S. Marines in Lebanon? Because the U.S. had intervened in the Lebanese Civil War, positioning itself as a participant in the conflict rather than a neutral peacekeeper. The Marines were shelling Druze and Shia positions from naval vessels before the bombing.

——————————

IRAN’S PROXY NETWORK (Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, militias in Iraq and Syria):

Every proxy on that list operates in a country where the U.S. or its allies intervened first.

Iraq — the U.S. invaded in 2003 on false WMD claims. Iranian-backed militias formed to resist the occupation.

Syria — the CIA ran Operation Timber Sycamore, spending billions arming Syrian rebels, many of whom were jihadists. Iran backed Assad. Both sides were proxies in someone else’s war.

Yemen — the Houthis fight against a Saudi-led coalition that the U.S. armed and supported. The Saudi bombing campaign created what the UN called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

———————-

The United States propaganda machine goes hard. The enemy is not a republican or a democrat.

For all of history people knew their governments were evil. Don’t forget that it’s true today. The enemy is not the one vilified by billionaire owned media dynasties”

~~~Andrew Sterling Ansley

——————————————————————-

The tragedy with most people who argue ignorantly, is that most of this information is open source intelligence and not classified information.

On 3/28/2026 at 2:56 PM, koolkarl said:

Incredible comment. You are a hardcore antisemite.

It’s a badge of honor whenever I get accused by Zionists of being antisemite.