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.
