Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei praying at the Sharine of Masoumeh in Qom on the day of Muscat talks
Many Iranian officials, political elites, and many public figures appear to be cautiously optimistic as Tehran and Washington prepare for the next round of nuclear talks, set to take place on April 19.
The optimism stems from what appears to be a shift in Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s position—evidenced by his authorization of earlier negotiations in Muscat—and US President Donald Trump’s insistence that Iran must either accept a deal or face serious consequences. Notably, Khamenei made no mention of the talks during his meeting with military commanders following the Oman round, echoing hissilence on other contentious issues such as the mandatory hijab in recent months.
“God willing, the negotiations will move forward in the right direction, public anxiety will ease, and the country can return to a state of calm so businesses can operate with more motivation and confidence,” said Mahmoud Alavi, special aide to President Masoud Pezeshkian and former intelligence minister, on Tuesday. Alavi added that a deal seems plausible because Trump, now positioning himself for the international stage, may prefer being remembered as a “peace hero” rather than a “war hero.”
The former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali-Akbar Salehi, expressed similar optimism. He said both Tehran and Washington appear determined to reach a positive outcome and dismissed the likelihood of military conflict, adding that Trump has no interest in engaging the US in another war.
Azar Mansouri, head of the Reform Front, echoed this hopeful sentiment in a post on X, describing a “general feeling of optimism” within society. She emphasized that the talks were being coordinated by “all pillars of governance”—a veiled reference to Khamenei and his close circle—and described the process as constructive so far.
Abbas Golrou, a member of the parliament’s National Security Committee, also pointed to consensus within the political establishment. “The entire sovereign system has endorsed the talks,” he said, again alluding to Khamenei’s involvement. “This is the right thing to do.”
In interviews with the reformist daily Ham-Mihan, several former diplomats expressed cautious hope. “This may be the first time we can [realistically] hope for all sanctions—not just nuclear-related ones—to be lifted if the negotiations fully succeed,” said Qasem Mohebali, former Director General of the Foreign Ministry’s Middle East and North Africa Division.
Still, concerns remain. Mansouri warned of potential disruption from hardline factions with significant access to state media and public platforms such as Friday prayer pulpits.
•
•
The influence of ultra-hardline opponents of US engagement, including former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and the Steadfastness Front (Paydari Party), appears to be waning amid internal divisions. Even among some hardliners, resistance to negotiations has softened, as outright opposition could now be interpreted as defiance of Khamenei’s authority.
Facing a deepening economic crisis, President Pezeshkian has publicly acknowledged that sanctions must be lifted for any meaningful recovery. As a result, many ordinary Iranians are also pinning their hopes on the success of the talks.
“People are hopeful, cautious, angry, and anxious all at once—but I think most of them are taking the possibility of a deal very seriously,” said Amir-Hossein, a Tehran-based businessman, in an interview with Iran International.
“You can see it in the market,” he added. “People are starting to sell the dollars they were holding onto, which shows they believe the rial might strengthen if sanctions are lifted," he said, adding that in his view Khamenei has realized that he has no option other than capitulating to save himself and the Islamic Republic from annihilation.
Indeed, the Iranian rial has appreciated in recent days, and the main index of the Tehran Stock Exchange has rebounded sharply—surpassing its all-time high from January after months of decline.
US envoy Steve Witkoff, who on Monday appeared to signal that Washington might tolerate limited uranium enrichment by Iran, clarified in a Tuesday tweet that Tehran "must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program."
Witkoff’s remarks on Monday suggested that any new deal could closely resemble the Obama-era JCPOA, which President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018.
In a tweet on Tuesday Witkoff seemed to have backtracked from his earlier statement.
“A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal," the special envoy said and added, "...meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program."
On Monday, Witkoff had said in an interview with Fox News’ Hannity that Iran's uranium enrichment would not be eliminated entirely but rather scaled back to the JCPOA’s limit of 3.67 percent. “They do not need to enrich past 3.67 percent,” he said.
Ha also added that “This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment program, and then ultimately verification on weaponization. That includes missiles—the type of missiles that they have stockpiled there—and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”
This particular demand would be within reach, as Tehran has repeatedly has called for a US return to the original terms of the JCPOA.
So what was new in Witkoff’s remarks in his interview with Fox?
First, the Trump administration is seeking a broader inspection regime than the one included in the JCPOA. This could entail access not only to declared enrichment facilities, but also to potential sites involved in warhead development. Iran has consistently resisted such expanded oversight, and this will likely be a point of friction in the talks.
Second, Witkoff explicitly mentioned Iran’s ballistic missile program—a domain left mostly untouched by the original nuclear deal. Including missile oversight would require access to Iran’s extensive military research and development infrastructure, which Tehran has long refused to open to outside inspection.
The logic for including missiles is clear. If Iran were to produce nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles would be its most viable delivery system. Iran has already built thousands of such missiles. While they may not be highly advanced, when armed with nuclear warheads, they could pose a significant threat to the region, including Israel, Greece, and potentially other parts of southern and eastern Europe.
Witkoff had hinted at the administration’s limited goals in an earlier interview with Tucker Carlson in March. However, other senior officials, including the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser, have publicly pushed for the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program.
One unresolved issue is also the fate of nearly 300 kilograms of highly enriched uranium that Iran has stockpiled. According to a report by The Guardian on Tuesday, the United States has proposed transferring the material to a third country, such as Russia—a move Tehran is likely to oppose. The issue was reportedly raised during recent talks in Oman between Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Witkoff, but Iran insisted the stockpile remain under UN supervision inside the country..
Ultimately, the central question is how quickly and how far Tehran is prepared to go in reaching a deal, specially if the US insists on zero enrichment—and whether the Trump administration is willing to compromise on its tougher demands during the bargaining process.
"Iran has to get rid of the concept of a nuclear weapon. They cannot have a nuclear weapon," President Trump said on April 14. "I think they're tapping us along because they were so used to dealing with stupid people in this country."
“They've got to go fast, because they're fairly close to having one, and they're not going to have one,” he added. “If we have to do something very harsh, we'll do it. And I'm not doing it for us, I'm doing it for the world. These are radicalized people, and they cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson said that US-Iran negotiations are indirect because direct talks would not be effective or beneficial for the Islamic Republic.
Esmail Baghaei said that indirect negotiations are not unusual and have occurred before, adding that they are currently taking place in other contexts as well.
“Direct negotiations, in a situation where one side insists on a coercive approach, uses threats, and resorts to force, are neither beneficial nor acceptable to a side like the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said speaking to reporters on Monday. “Therefore, we will continue with the form and approach we have chosen.”
Baghaei also said that the next round of talks may take place in a location other than Oman, adding that the location is not as important as ensuring the framework of interaction between Iran and the US remains unchanged.
On Sunday, Axios reported that Rome will host second round of Iran-US negotiations next week.
Baghaei added that the Iran's main demand in the negotiations is the removal of sanctions, which the Islamic Republic is pursuing with determination.
Baghaei also confirmed that the Director General of the UN's nuclear watchdog Rafael Grossi will likely visit Tehran this week. Earlier the Wall Street Journal reported that Grossi will visit Tehran this week ahead of the next round of US-Iran talks on Saturday.
He also addressed Tehran's economic cooperation with Washington, saying: "The Islamic Republic has never placed any obstacles to economic cooperation with other parties, but the real problem lies with the US, which, through complex laws, has deprived its own citizens of any economic dealings with Iran."
Baghaei confirmed that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will travel to Moscow later this week for a pre-planned visit.
"The trip was planned in advance, but there will be consultations regarding the talks with the US," Baghaei said.
The first thing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi probably noticed upon returning to Tehran from Oman—where he met with US Special Envoy Steve Wikoff—was the appearance of his own oversized images on billboards across the capital’s expressways.
Hardliners in Tehran have been working to frame the opaque, closed-door meeting—described as positive by both sides—as a political win for the Islamic Republic. Some have even gone so far as to label it a victory.
The following day, Javan, the IRGC-affiliated daily, declared: "Iran is the winner of the negotiations, with or without an agreement." The paper described the meeting as "a show of Iran's power against the United States' helplessness."
Javan highlighted the breaking of the deadlock and the promise of further negotiations as signs the process would ultimately benefit Iran. It claimed Iran had dictated "all of its preconditions, including the venue, timing, and agenda" to the United States.
This triumphant narrative, however, stood in contrast to Araghchi’s own statement that the talks focused solely on nuclear issues. Meanwhile, Reuters reported that the negotiations aimed to "de-escalate regional tensions, facilitate prisoner exchanges, and reach limited agreements to ease sanctions in exchange for controlling Iran's nuclear program."
At the same time, some hardliners sought to emphasize Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s authority by noting that he had personally authorized the meeting.
However some opposition to negotiations was evident among ultra-hardliners. They appeared to highlight Khamenei's role with the possible intent of assigning blame to him should the renewed diplomatic engagement fail.
Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the Khamenei-linked Kayhan newspaper, wrote: "The indirect talks with the United States could not have taken place without Khamenei's permission. If he had not approved them, he would certainly have blocked the meeting."
Shariatmadari added: "The horizon is not clear, and Iran must think of a Plan B." He dismissed US threats of military action as "a bluff," and claimed that "the draft Witkoff handed to Araghchi included no such thing as dismantling Iran's nuclear establishments or the possibility of a military attack."
Outspoken ultra-hardliner lawmaker Hamid Rasaei said in parliament on Sunday morning: "We all know that the Supreme Leader believes that the United States is not trustworthy and that negotiations with Washington are useless." He added, however, that "The Leader has authorized the talks to prove to some Iranian officials that the US breaks its promises and will put forward illogical demands."
Meanwhile, another ultraconservative MP, Mahmood Nabavian, vice-chairman of the Iranian parliament's national security committee, claimed that Trump initially wanted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to participate in the talks with Araghchi. "But we insisted that Witkoff should go to Oman instead," he said, adding: "Trump accepted all of Iran's conditions regarding the format of the talks."
Saeed Haddadian, a political aide to parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, also warned against excessive optimism about the negotiations with Washington. He suggested that Trump might not even support the approach taken by his own special envoy.
"If you show weakness in front of a thug such as Trump," Haddadian said, "you are likely to end up like Ukrainian President Zelensky. You will be humiliated, and you will not get any results."
In a separate development, Mehdi Fazaeli, a member of the Supreme Leader's office staff, denied claims that senior Iranian officials had pressured Khamenei to shift his position in response to Trump’s letter or to adjust his overall approach to the talks.
The apparent swift progress of talks between the United States and Tehran has caused some observers to wonder whether Washington's former embassy, the emblem of their original bitter rift, may be reinstated in the event of success.
Early on Sunday, dissident lawyer and civil activist Hassan Younesi posted on X that he had heard “some groups and organizations stationed at the embassy building … have been ordered to evacuate it.” The post quickly drew attention, partly because Younesi’s father, Ali Younesi, served as intelligence minister under reformist President Mohammad Khatami.
Hours later, however, Younesi deleted the post and published a follow-up, saying he had been contacted by what he called “responsible authorities” who denied the reports and said his post had created the mistaken impression that preliminary steps were being taken to prepare the embassy for a handover.
Such deletions by political activists and media figures—often under pressure from security agencies—are not uncommon in Iran.
Some users suggested that a potential handover could pave the way for American investments in Iran, especially after President Masoud Pezeshkian commented recently that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had “no objection” to American investors entering the Iranian market.
The main US embassy building covered with Qasem Soleimani's banner. 2020
“Why would Trump push for direct talks unless it’s about reopening the embassy?” one user posted. “How else can US companies invest here?”
Former Israeli official and spokesperson Ben Sabeti also weighed in on X: “Iran makes cheap gestures toward @POTUS for the success of negotiations? There are reports about the US Embassy in Tehran being vacated for the first time since 1979. Is the regime also ready to make nuclear concessions?”
Meanwhile, Iranian media—highly constrained by censorship—picked up Younesi’s now-deleted post, but offered minimal commentary. “If true, this is a very meaningful step,” read a brief article titled What’s the story of the evacuation of the US Embassy building? published by Rouydad24 on Sunday. Fararu, another popular online outlet, published a gallery of recent photos showing foreign tourists visiting the former embassy, under the headline US Embassy in Tehran Draws Attention Again on Day of Talks—without offering any further remarks.
The US embassy takeover forty-six years ago
Islamist students occupied the embassy in November 1979. The students held tens of American diplomats and other staff hostage for 444 days. The embassy compound, which the students called “Den of Spies”, however, has been used as a base by IRGC-affiliated groups, including the Basij militia and its affiliated Daneshjoo (Student) News Agency.
Other parts of the building were converted into a museum and opened to the public in recent years. The Swiss embassy has represented US interests in Iran in the past forty-six years.
The US embassy in Tehran with a shredded US flag.
Calls for normalization of relations and re-opening of the embassy
In recent years, various Iranian political and media figures have supported the idea of restoring diplomatic ties with the United States and returning the embassy building after decades of occupation.
Most recently, reformist politician and cleric Mohsen Rohami suggested in an interview published by Khabar Online that Iran and the United States could re-open their embassies and that higher officials than foreign ministers could sit at the negotiation table.
“This will have a positive psychological impact, besides its practical outcome, on our society and neighbors,” Khabar Online on Sunday quoted Rohami, who served as the legal deputy of Pezeshkian’s campaign last year, as saying.
Back in August 2024, Mehdi Ghazanfari, head of the National Development Fund, called for the reestablishment of consular relations with the United States. He controversially blamed the Communist Tudeh Party for provoking the 1979 embassy seizure and urged the Pezeshkian administration to act fast before what he called his political rivals' honeymoon with him ended.
His suggestion was echoed by some other politicians and public figures including Mohammad-Hossein Khoshvaght, a former official of the Islamic Guidance Ministry and managing director of Fararu. Khoshvaght has close ties to Khamenei’s household through the marriage of his sister to Khamenei’s eldest son, Mostafa.
Khoshvaght contended that normalization of relations could benefit both countries. "An Iran that has normal relations with the United States is a nightmare for Russia and Israel; for Putin, an Iran with nuclear weapons is less dangerous than an Iran that has normal relations with the United States!" he wrote on X.
In a 2015 interview with The Guardian, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said reopening the embassy was “not impossible” if both sides changed their behavior. Similarly, in a 2014 interview with Swiss TV during the Davos Forum, President Hassan Rouhani said animosity with the United States could eventually turn into friendship.
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 exchange as “positive and constructive,” 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.”