Moderates tell Tehran to offer enrichment halt for sanctions relief

“In the current situation, the conditions for negotiations with the United States are not ready,” said Mehdi Tabatabaei, deputy for communications and information at the president’s office, in an interview with Iranian media.

“Today this possibility does not exist, but 40 days from now, when the president is in New York, the situation may be different. We live in a state of uncertainty,” he said, referring to President Masoud Pezeshkian’s upcoming visit for the UN General Assembly in late September.

Tabatabaei added that any decision on talks with Washington would not rest solely with the government and would require final approval from the Supreme Leader.

“The considerations of the Supreme National Security Council are always taken into account, but its resolutions only gain effect when approved by the Supreme Leader.”

He added that Iran’s president, who also heads the Supreme National Security Council, remains bound by the authority of Ali Khamenei.

“In the case of the president, there is complete alignment and obedience to the considerations, strategies and views of the Supreme Leader,” he said.

Asked whether there had been differences in the past, Tabatabaei said, “At one point, the president’s view was to negotiate, but the Supreme Leader was not in agreement. The president said that the Supreme Leader’s opinion comes first, even if it is against his own view. Later, when conditions changed, the decision for negotiations also changed, and the government implemented it.”

“If conditions remain as they are now, no, there will be no talks. But it is not possible to rule out changes by then,” he said.

Tabatabaei also rejected suggestions of division within the leadership over Iran’s foreign policy, saying, “The coordination that exists today between the branches of government and the Supreme Leader is extraordinary. This unity of view and trust helped the country overcome the recent aggression by the Zionist regime and the United States.”

According to a recent report by Reuters, Supreme Leader and the country’s power structure have reached a consensus to resume nuclear negotiations with the United States, viewing them as vital to the Islamic Republic’s survival.

Amid deteriorating ties with Europe and the looming threat of another war with Israel, Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian is under mounting attack from Tehran’s hardliners, who question both his competence and his political judgment.

Allegations of a “shadow government” meddling in Iran’s foreign policy have also reignited concerns about the country’s diplomatic direction, just as high-stakes nuclear talks with the West hang in the balance.

Leading ultraconservative cleric and MP Hamid Rasai, pushing for a parliamentary probe into the president’s performance, seized on Pezeshkian’s recent comments about the Zangezur corridor and his remark that Iran has no choice but to negotiate with the United States.

“Critics say raising the issue of Pezeshkian’s political inadequacy in the midst of two wars is against expediency!” he wrote on X on August 13.

“The session that led to the disqualification and ousting of Iran’s first president, Abolhassan Banisadr, was also held during the 1980s war with Iraq.”

Rasai, who believes another confrontation with Israel is imminent, argued that while Pezeshkian is “not a traitor like Banisadr,” he is “ignorant of his responsibilities” and equally damaging to the system. “If he doesn’t take the initiative himself,” Rasai added, “let’s not deceive ourselves.”

Some social media users urged Rasai to voice such criticisms in parliament rather than online, while others attacked his own legitimacy, noting he was elected with just 4% of the vote compared with the far higher turnouts of MPs who impeached Banisadr.

Moderates join the fray

Even figures from Iran’s moderate camp are voicing disillusionment.

Ali Mohammad Namazi told conservative outlet Nameh News that Pezeshkian had failed to deliver on his 2024 campaign pledge to lift sanctions, re-engage with the world, and revive the economy.

Namazi said the president’s promise to form an active government from across the political spectrum instead produced “a cabinet of mediocre ministers” with “no outstanding economic or political figures.”

He added that industrial activity had stalled under budget constraints, energy and water shortages, and a lack of investment — leaving households waiting for sanctions relief to meet basic needs.

“Pezeshkian’s most important political promise was to hold talks with the West to lift sanctions and boost oil revenues,” Namazi said. “Not only did that not materialize, but even the negotiations expected to bear fruit within two months were halted following a damning IAEA report and a resolution tabled by Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.”

A systemic crisis

The intensifying criticism — from across Iran’s political spectrum — comes as the country faces the possible snapback of all UN sanctions, a blow that could sever its economic lifeline.

Hardliners like Rasai frame the moment as a prelude to war; moderates like Namazi see a presidency adrift.

For many Iranians online, however, the attacks only underline a deeper reality: the country’s troubles lie in a rigid political system that no president alone can fix.

“Today, there is talk about the possible resumption of a military war, but it seems the enemy does not have the capability to attack again and fears Iran’s power. The Americans also fear the prospect of $150 oil and cannot endure such a situation,” said Ali Saidi.

“While evidence shows no immediate threat, the armed forces must remain on alert and strengthen their communications.”

A day before, Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, suggested dialogue with the United States could be possible, provided it is directed toward a genuine resolution.

“If the United States realizes it cannot defeat the Islamic Republic through war and then seeks negotiations, we will respond positively. But if they negotiate to prepare for the next war, it will be of no benefit to us,” he told Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen.

France, the United Kingdom, and Germany have separately warned Iran they will reinstate UN sanctions unless Tehran reopens nuclear talks and produces tangible results by the end of August.

Earlier negotiations under the Trump administration collapsed when Israel launched military strikes on June 13, one day after a 60-day ultimatum expired. On the ninth day of the conflict, the United States bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities, which US President Donald Trump said had “obliterated” the program.

“Enrichment without an agreement means war—and even with an agreement, it is currently impractical,” Qassem Mohebali, former director general for the Middle East and North Africa at Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Rouydad 24 website.

"The only solution is to temporarily suspend this right until a deal is reached.”

Last month, Iran's foreign minister insisted Tehran would not give up enrichment and the United States has no way to end it militarily, after US President Donald Trump vowed to wipe out Iran's nuclear sites again if it revived its activities.

"All should know that we Iranians have NOT BOUGHT our PEACEFUL nuclear program; we have BUILT IT WITH BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS," Araghchi posted on X in late July.

This statement followed sharp criticism from US President Donald Trump, who called such a position “stupid” and vowed to prevent that from happening.

"They still talk about enrichment. I mean, who would do that? You just come out of something that's so bad, and they talk about, we want to continue enrichment. Who would say that? How stupid can you be to say that?" Trump said.

Is enrichment Iran's right?

While Iran insists that enrichment is its right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Mohebali says the right to enrichment and its actual implementation are different.

"The NPT doesn’t explicitly grant a ‘right to enrichment’, it only permits peaceful nuclear technology use, which doesn’t necessarily include enrichment."

“Iran could be granted this right but choose not to exercise it until an agreement is reached. At present, enrichment seems neither feasible nor open for discussion,” Mohebali added.

On June 22, Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordow, Esfahan, and Natanz, capping off a surprise Israeli military campaign that killed hundreds of people, including military personnel, nuclear scientists, and civilians.

Mohebali also warned that Iran's failure to reach a deal with world powers over its disputed nuclear program may lead to the return of UN sanctions which could itself escalate tensions.

“The return of UN Security Council sanctions—particularly Resolution 1929—would allow the United States, Israel, and Europe to impose official sanctions and carry out actions such as inspecting planes, ships, trains, or individuals. Such actions could themselves lead to war,” he said.

Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence issued secret guidance warning this week to ministries and major companies to prepare for the likely return of punishing United Nations sanctions.

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have warned that they are prepared to trigger the so-called “snapback” mechanism by the end of August if Tehran fails to reach a diplomatic solution.

The snapback mechanism, part of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), allows any party to the accord to file a complaint accusing Iran of non-compliance.

If no resolution is reached within 30 days, all previous UN sanctions would automatically “snap back,” including arms embargoes, cargo inspections, and missile restrictions.

It’s a task Ali Khamenei once handled directly — intervening to rein in factions and reassert unity — but his low profile in recent weeks has left a vacuum.

Not long before this “visible invisibility,” Khamenei publicly warned against the perils of political loose talk.

“Our shortcomings, our tongue wagging, our pointless bickering, our lack of patience, our incorrect analysis of the situation, sometimes change the course of history,” he said on April 24.

At the time, the remarks were read as a reprimand to officials for lax security and for letting their rivalries spill into the open, weakening Tehran’s hand in dealings with adversaries, above all Israel and the United States.

Now, those same dynamics are on display again, but it’s the IRGC playing nanny, sweeping up the shards of political infighting while Khamenei focuses elsewhere.

The clerical establishment is trying to thread an impossible needle: secure sanctions relief, or at least stave off a European “snapback” of UN sanctions, through diplomacy, while rebuilding its triple deterrence— missile and drone stockpiles, its proxy network, and uranium enrichment program.

Fracas One: ‘golden calf’

On August 5, Saeed Jalili, a Khamenei representative to the Supreme National Security Council and a prominent hardliner, lashed out at advocates of renewed talks with Washington, calling them “golden calf worshippers”—a scriptural reference denoting impatience and betrayal.

Jalili, who lost to Masoud Pezeshkian in the 2024 presidential race, has long opposed engagement with the West. But this time his remarks drew fire not just from reformists, but also from the hardest core of Iran’s power: the IRGC.

The IRGC-linked daily Javan warned that airing strategic disputes in public was “harmful,” while the Guards-affiliated Tasnim news agency cautioned against “radicalism.”

Only Raja News, tied to the sidelined family of late president Ebrahim Raisi, backed Jalili — a move likely aimed at clawing back influence.

Under sustained pressure, Jalili retreated on August 12, posting on X that failing to negotiate when opportunities arise would “cause losses,” citing Khamenei’s April endorsement of Oman-mediated nuclear talks with the U.S.

Fracas Two: no way but to talk

From the other side of the political spectrum, President Pezeshkian triggered the next flare-up on August 10.

“You reject engaging in talks. What’s your alternative? Do you want to fight? Fine, [the adversaries will] strike again. Then you have to repair the damage… These are not issues to be approached emotionally,” he told critics.

Reformist outlets hailed his “realism” and “honesty,” while hardline media accused him of advocating “surrender.” Again, the IRGC intervened.

Aziz Ghazanfari, a senior political chief, praised Pezeshkian’s “honesty and purity,” but warned that “not everything should be said in public” and urged him to stick to pre-approved, scripted comments.

Whether the IRGC can keep senior politicians’ “tongue wagging” in check—and prevent Khamenei’s carefully balanced machinations from unravelling—may determine whether Tehran’s strategy holds or fractures again.