This sort of thing makes me feel that ServerFault is turning into Wikipedia, with some people spending more time looking for questions to close than engaging them.
It has plenty of answers and upvotes (as well as plenty of close votes). It's hardly like the community here trolls for things to close. That said, there is a /review section for 10k users to quickly and easily see what's been downvoted, what has close votes, etc. It's to keep the site clean and on-topic. In my opinion, the questionis very much localized the way that it's asked. The definition is as follows:
This question is unlikely to ever help any future visitors; it is only
relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an
extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to
the worldwide audience of the internet.
I, as well as 4 other users capable of casting close votes decided that this question fit into that definition. That said, had he not mentioned Iran it would have been closed as off-topic anyway most likely, since it's about policy subversion.
Obviously people feel for the OP, but it's not our job to help people skirt the laws of their lands. I very much disagree with the filtering of traffic in the way that Iran does, but it's not SF's place to decide what is acceptable in other countries.
I've seen this sort of thing manifest itself on other forums over the years - that is why most of them are unfriendly and of limited use after a short time.
Stack Exchange sites are not forums. Thinking of them as such will lead to frustration. There are strict guidelines for what is and is not acceptable and it helps keep this as one of the most relevant communities on the web.