Squeezed Iranians doubt whether Iran talks will bring relief
Some Iranians are questioning whether US-Iran talks will alleviate persistent economic hardship and political repression.
Some Iranians are questioning whether US-Iran talks will alleviate persistent economic hardship and political repression.
The talks took place on Saturday and were led by Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
While both sides described the Iranians interviewed anonymously by Iran International or in the form of messages to its submission service questioned the impact of the discussions on their lives.
“This negotiation won’t lower prices or fix the economy,” said one citizen in a video message showing a small grocery purchase costing over ten million rials (around $11).
“Even if billions are unfrozen, not a single rial will reach the people. It’s all in the name of the people, but for the benefit of the regime,” another added.
Iran's economy has been in crisis since 2018, when Trump exited the JCPOA nuclear deal and imposed heavy sanctions on Iran. Tens of millions subsist at poverty level, with workers making around $120 a month.
Some pointed to systemic mismanagement and repression as the root of Iran’s crises, not international sanctions. They criticized the West for engaging diplomatically with a government they believe is at its weakest.
“Why negotiate when the regime is vulnerable?” asked one voice message. “Why not support the Iranian people and end this nightmare?”
The move toward talks, despite Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s longstanding opposition to negotiations with what he has repeatedly called a untrustworthy United States, was seen by some as an act of desperation.
“Khamenei once said Qasem Soleimani’s shoes were worth more than Trump,” said a citizen to Iran International, referring to the IRGC commander killed in 2020 on Trump's orders. “Now he negotiates with the man he called Soleimani’s killer.”
As Trump continues to press for a new deal—recently warning that Iran must comply or face consequences—many Iranians say the clerical rulers have caved to external pressure for the sake of survival.
“They refused American vaccines during COVID, but now they’re ready to shake Trump’s hand to stay in power,” said another.
Several messages also highlighted a growing sense that the only path to change may be confrontation. “We’re even ready for war,” said one citizen. “If that’s what it takes to end this regime.”
Images circulating online captured public sentiment, including a Tehran banner reading: “With or without a deal, this executioner republic will fall by the will of the Iranian people.”
The talks should be treated as a national decision rather than a partisan initiative, said the former Deputy Speaker of Iran’s Parliament Ali Motahari.
“These talks are a decision by the entire system and must not be portrayed as imposed by one faction,” said Motahari, a conservative politician known for outspoken views, in an interview with Rouydad24 on Saturday.
Motahari pointed to the 2015 nuclear agreement as an example of what could be achieved through engagement but also how easily it could unravel.
“In the two years the JCPOA was implemented, we saw single-digit inflation and higher economic growth,” he said. “Let’s not allow partisan competition sabotage this round.”
The outcome of this round would signal whether “the negotiations are on a constructive track and whether the other side seeks a fair resolution or talks from a position of dominance,” he said.
From the Reformist camp, a former official also called for sidelining powerful domestic actors who benefit from Iran’s continued isolation.
“To advance negotiations and end sanctions, the government must disarm the so-called sanctions profiteers,” said Mohammad Hashemi, the brother of former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in an interview with Khabar Online website.
Hashemi warned that these groups, though few in number, wield significant influence and have actively worked to destabilize the new government.
“Their power lies in chaos. Without confronting them, real progress is impossible,” he added.
He also offered a cautious assessment of US President Donald Trump.
“Trump has no credible track record. He tore up the nuclear deal and ordered the killing of IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani,” Hashemi said.
“But he’s also a businessman, not a warmonger. He prefers deals over war.”
Iranian officials insist the program is peaceful, but Tehran's uranium enrichment expansions have concerned Western powers and led to warnings from Israel and the United States of possible military action.
When and why did Iran start its nuclear program?
Iran's nuclear activities began in the 1950s under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as one component of a US-supported initiative to promote civilian nuclear power in allied nations. The United States helped Iran build its initial research reactor at Tehran University under the Atoms for Peace initiative. The shah envisioned a grid of reactors to power Iranian cities, coupled with enhancing the scientific stature of the country.
Iran had by the 1970s signed with France and West Germany a deal to build a number of reactors. America had in principle agreed to allow Iran to establish a full nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment and reprocessing — technology that is sensitive as it could be used to produce fuel for civilian reactors or weapons.
Western countries considered Iran a reliable ally at the time, and little global outcry was expressed over the program. That all changed with the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
What happened to the program after the Islamic Revolution?
When the shah was overthrown and Ruhollah Khomeini established the Islamic Republic, most of Iran's nuclear activities came to a halt. Foreign suppliers stepped back. Several nuclear facilities were abandoned or left unfinished. Iran's new leaders, wary of Western influence and burdened with war against Iraq, relegated nuclear development to the bottom of their agenda.
But by the late 1980s and early 1990s, Iran began to restart its program. The Islamic Republic signed agreements with Russia and Pakistan and ramped up activity at facilities like Natanz and Arak. These efforts raised suspicions, especially because Iran was operating some of its facilities clandestinely.
The IAEA was not aware of all the construction, and suspicions mounted about whether Iran's intentions were strictly civilian or not.
What contributed to the nuclear standoff?
The dissident opposition group National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed in 2002 two secret Iranian nuclear sites at Natanz and Arak. The revelation shocked Western intelligence and led to a request by the UN nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for an inquiry.
Inspectors confirmed the existence of indications that Iran had conducted activity pertinent to acquiring a nuclear weapon — such as experiments on high-explosives and possible models for missile warheads.
Iran said it intended to acquire only nuclear power and not an atomic bomb. Yet its concealment of the operations from reporting contravened Iran's safeguards treaty to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that it had signed.
As a counter, the UN Security Council imposed a set of resolutions that insisted Iran stop suspending its reprocessing and enrichment. Sanctions were enforced upon Iran's defense, energy, and banking. The confrontation hardened over the decade that followed.
What was the purpose of the 2015 nuclear accord?
After years of negotiations, Iran and six of the world's top powers — US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China — agreed on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015.
Under the deal, Iran agreed to restrict uranium enrichment to 3.67% purity — well short of weapons-grade. The deal also limited Iran's partially enriched uranium stockpile to 300 kilograms. It dismantled and stored thousands of centrifuges. It agreed to intrusive IAEA inspections such as supply chain tracking and declared facilities.
In return, Iran gained relief from international sanctions, including the unfreezing of billions in foreign assets and re-entry into international oil markets.
The US administration's allies greeted the deal as a major non-proliferation achievement. President Barack Obama called it "a long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
The United States why pulled out of the deal?
The United States withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, when then-President Donald Trump announced that the agreement had failed to prevent Iran from expanding its ballistic missile program or aiding armed groups across the region.
Announcing the deal "a disaster," Trump reimposed sweeping sanctions in what his administration described as a "maximum pressure" campaign to push Iran to accept more restrictive terms.
“Iran’s leaders will naturally say that they refuse to negotiate a new deal. That’s fine. I’d probably say the same thing if I were in their position. But the fact is, they’re going to want to make a new and lasting deal,” Trump said at the White House at the time of the withdrawal announcement.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed in a series of quarterly reports that Iran remained in compliance throughout the remainder of Trump's term — including May, August, and November 2018 inspections, as well as early 2019.
Tehran's gradual erosion of the accord came only after Joe Biden's election. On January 4, 2021, just over two weeks before Biden took office, Iran resumed 20% enrichment at its Fordow plant. In February, it prevented IAEA inspectors from visiting its facilities and began producing uranium enriched to 60% by mid-April — far beyond the limit of the accord's 3.67%, but short of the 90% necessary for weapons-grade material.
Iran currently has a reserve of enriched uranium above the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) threshold, enriched to 60% purity, according to the IAEA.
Although Biden officials have spoken of Trump's withdrawal as the trigger for the deal's collapse, timelines show that Iran did not commit serious violations until the end of Trump's presidency.
How close is Iran to developing a nuclear weapon?
According to US intelligence estimates Tehran is now able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon within weeks if it were to decide to do so.
In a recent TV interview, Ali Larijani, the Supreme Leader's chief adviser warned that Iran will be able to make weapons if pushed into a corner. “If you make a mistake regarding Iran’s nuclear issue, you will force Iran to take that path, because it must defend itself,” he said.
The IAEA has expressed concern about traces of uranium that remain unidentified at undeclared locations and reports that Iran has not provided sufficient explanations on a number of issues that remain outstanding.
What is the official position of Iran?
Iran continues to say that its nuclear program is peaceful. "The official stance of Iran in rejecting weapons of mass destruction and regarding the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program is clear," foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said.
But officials generally follow such statements with warnings regarding self-defense. Baghaei cited a recent speech of the Supreme Leader to the effect that Iran would arm itself "to the extent necessary for the defense of Iran."
Iranian leaders present the US and Israel as the aggressors. "The enmity from the US and Israel has always been there. They threaten to attack us, which we don’t think is very probable, but if they commit any mischief, they will surely receive a strong reciprocal blow," Khamenei said in March 2025.
Why are the US and Iran negotiating now?
US and Iranian officials conduct talks in Oman hoping to revive the nuclear talks. The discussions, President Trump announced, will be direct, while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that communication would be through intermediaries.
The diplomatic push coincides with rising tensions. Trump has sent a letter to Khamenei threatening to punitive military strikes if there is no deal. “I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing,’” Trump said.
What is Israel's role in the nuclear standoff?
Israel has always opposed the JCPOA and sees a nuclear Iran as an existential threat. Israel is believed to have orchestrated sabotage plots against Iranian nuclear facilities and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in the last two decades, based on intelligence officials quoted by several Western news outlets.
Although Israel has not publicly taken responsibility of all the incidents, it has committed to acting if diplomacy fails. Iran has, in turn, correlated its nuclear stance with the danger of Israel's undeclared nuclear capacity and record of strikes.
What's on the line now?
With Iran's uranium enrichment to new record levels and diplomacy at an impasse, the threat of escalation hangs perilously close. The deployment of US B-2 bombers to the region, as well as Tehran's threat to employ its underground cities of missiles as a counter-attack, is what accentuates the mounting tension. The crisis has been amplified by further incendiary language against Iran from Donald Trump.
Both sides still express a preference for negotiation, but there is profound mutual distrust. America wants tighter terms; Iran demands sanctions relief and guarantees the deal won't collapse like before.
The success of current efforts has the potential to decide not just Iran's nuclear future but the broader dynamics of Middle Eastern security for decades to come.
