With the US and Iran inching towards an agreement to end the conflict that began more than three months ago, it’s clear that some factions in Iran are not happy about what’s on offer.
Hardliners have been taking to state-media with harsh criticisms of the reported details of the “memorandum of understanding;” and some rallies have seen chanting against the negotiators.
Despite the discord, the regime is likely to have the final say.
US President Donald Trump has suggested the memorandum would be signed on Sunday – his 80th birthday. But there’s been no confirmation from Tehran that a final text has been agreed.
Much of the dissent emerging in Iran comes from a fringe faction known as “Jebhe-ye Paydari” – or the Endurance Front – who view themselves as guardians of the values of the 1979 revolution that overthrew the pro-Western Shah before imposing an authoritarian regime rooted in Shia Islamist ideology.
Over the past months, Iranian officials have tried to carefully balance negotiations with Trump while appeasing factions across the country’s diverse political landscape, including the Paydari group. Inclusion of the group’s members in talks with American negotiators in Pakistan in April suggested Tehran was trying to show internal cohesion.
Yet the extremist group has mobilized its members and media outlets to ramp up criticism of the agreement, heaping pressure on Iranian negotiators who have been attempting to extract concessions from a US administration intent on weakening – and possibly ending – the Islamic Republic.
One prominent hardliner from the group, Mahmoud Nabavian, said that if Iran signs the agreement “we will effectively become a colony of the United States,” adding that the agreement would mean opening up the vital Strait of Hormuz “even for Israel.”
“If we want to carry out even the smallest amount of uranium enrichment, we would first have to obtain permission from the United States – even for purposes such as producing medicine or electricity,” Nabavian, who himself was once a member of the negotiation team, added.
Nor was it clear when Iran would benefit from the release of its frozen assets overseas or sanctions relief, he added.
“The more signals of weakness we send, the closer war comes to us,” Nabavian said in a television interview where he read through an alleged agreement document.
The text of the agreement has not been officially released.
The hardliners have even mobilized protests against any agreement, organizing a large demonstration for Sunday night outside the foreign ministry targeting Iran’s top diplomat, Abbas Araghchi, in open defiance of the calls for unity.
The rising dissent in the media and on the streets prompted social media outlets representing Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to repost a message he had from March calling for the media to “seriously refrain from focusing on weaknesses.”
The newspaper Javan, seen as close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said some speakers at public rallies were ignoring the instructions of Khamenei and were “acting to scatter the seeds of schism and division among the people.”
Participants at one rally in Tehran on Saturday demanded the resignations of Araghchi and Iran’s chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, according to social media videos.
They recalled the assassination at the beginning of the conflict in February of Khamenei’s father – the previous Supreme Leader – with the chant: “Ghalibaf, Araghchi – what about my Leader’s blood?”
Ali Rabiei, an official close to President Masoud Pezeshkian, pushed back Sunday, warning against creating “artificial narratives.”
And Iranian media outlets have cautioned against allowing disagreement to become division.
“The ugly insults that were unfortunately directed at some officials last night, although committed by a specific and very limited group and exaggerated by anti-Iranian hostile media, are completely unacceptable even on that limited scale,” the semi-official Tasnim news agency said Sunday.
“If there is criticism or protest, there are certainly reasonable and courteous ways to express it,” it added.
Voices opposing an agreement with the US have always existed inside the Islamic Republic. The real question is whether they are strong enough to derail the impending signing or even sabotage future negotiations aimed at reaching a comprehensive deal.
The Iranian nezam – or regime – including the supreme leader, the president, the foreign minister, the parliament speaker, and the military, has made a point of showcasing unity in its efforts to negotiate a diplomatic resolution with Trump.
Yet core elements of the Islamic Republic – including the state broadcaster, veteran conservative politicians and protesters who claim victory in the war against the US and Israel – have intensified their efforts against any agreement, which they view as surrendering the gains from the war.
Contrary to a commonly held narrative that debate in Iran, the country has a distinct and vibrant political discourse. Diverse factions, representing a range of views and backed by their own media outlets, are permitted to operate within the structures of the state – as long as they do not challenge the foundational elements of the Islamic Republic, primarily the supreme leader.
Just as there are voices in the US and Israel opposing any agreement with Tehran, Iran has its own dissenting factions. While they stop short of directly challenging the supreme leader, these voices are now bold enough to claim even that Mojtaba Khamenei has been deceived into blessing the agreement.
But the regime retains control. Dissent may be loud and even divisive at times, but the power of decision remains in the hands of an entrenched governing structure that this war has failed to destroy.
CNN
Read More