Trump’s peace overtures stir uneasy debate in beleaguered Iran

“I have no serious concern about plots by the United States or others, because their hostility is obvious,” Pezeshkian told a cabinet meeting, state news agency IRNA quoted him as saying in a cabinet meeting.

“But I am deeply worried about the spread of false polarizations, divisions, and constant efforts to discredit and blacken everything inside the country.”

Hardline lawmakers have four of Pezeshkian’s cabinet ministers in their crosshairs for impeachment proceedings they launched this month, in what critics say is a bid to stall the government rather than to offer alternatives.

'People despair'

The conservatives have reportedly tabled motions against Energy Minister Abbas Aliabadi, Roads and Urban Planning Minister Farzaneh Sadegh, Agriculture Minister Gholamreza Nouri and Labor Minister Ahmad Maydari.

“Such behavior fuels anger, anxiety, and despair among the people. In these circumstances, we must all join hands and take positive steps together to overcome the difficult times ahead and give people hope,” Pezeshkian added, without specifically addressing the moves by his opponents.

The return last month of UN sanctions triggered by European powers has further hobbled Iran's economy after a punishing conflict with Israel and the United States in a 12-day war in June.

The reimposition of the so-called "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions by US President Donald Trump has also piled pressure on the government.

“I can handle foreign issues, but I am worried about our internal problems,” Pezeshkian added.

Chronic division

Ideological clashes have limited his ability to advance campaign promises to reduce diplomatic isolation and improve standards of living.

Despite repeated calls for unity, divisions over foreign policy and domestic priorities continue to stall cohesion within Iran’s political establishment.

Iran declined to attend the Gaza peace summit hosted by Egypt this week, signaling a deliberate diplomatic snub amid deep regional tensions.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iranian diplomats could not “sit with countries that have attacked the Iranian people and continue to threaten and sanction us."

The commentariat in Tehran remain divided about the wisdom of the snub. Some view the boycott as a principled stand against Western and Arab pressure, while others see it as a missed opportunity to influence postwar diplomacy in the region.

While hardline media aligned with the establishment condemned the summit outright, reformist and moderate voices turned their criticism inward, questioning the government’s decision to boycott the meeting and the reasoning behind it.

Hardline daily Jam-e Jam, run by state broadcaster IRIB, headlined its front page “The Shameful Summit.”

The gathering, the daily wrote, was not a symbol of peace, but "a stage for diplomacy wearing a mask of empathy — while the same actors keep the fires of war burning.”

'Resistance miracle'

Javan, linked to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), was more bullish.

“Does anyone in the West truly believe they ‘won the war’ and can dictate postwar conditions?” the daily asked in an editorial. “The new order favors the Resistance Front and the Islamic Republic, to the detriment of Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

The ultra-conservative Kayhan, funded by the Supreme Leader’s office, had the answer to Javan’s rhetorical question.

“The Zionist regime failed to achieve any of its military goals and had to negotiate with Hamas,” Kayhan wrote under the front-page headline “The Miracle of Resistance.”

Hamshahri, run by Tehran’s municipality, backed Iran’s decision to decline Egypt’s invitation, calling it “an effort to rescue Netanyahu from the Gaza quagmire through negotiation with Hamas.”

Hardline commentator Mohammad Nadimi issued a harsh warning.

“Sharm el-Sheikh is the completion of the Arab-Israeli-American alliance for a new Middle East. Join it, and we give up the islands, missiles, enrichment and drones; refuse, and we must prepare for war to restore balance,” he posted on X.

‘Peace hanging in balance’

Tehran moderates offered a more restrained response — with the reformist daily Shargh splashing “Peace on a Razor’s Edge” on its Tuesday front page.

“Whether Iran views this ceasefire as an opportunity to consolidate influence or a temporary setback depends on Washington’s policy toward Tehran and its regional competition with Riyadh,” the paper’s editorial read.

Former presidential aide Mohammad Ali Abtahi highlighted the human loss in Gaza.

“Two years ago neither Hamas imagined accepting peace after 65,000 martyrs and Gaza’s destruction, nor Israel thought it would end up signing a peace deal with the group it calls terrorist,” he wrote on X.

Former ambassador Nosratollah Tajik questioned the efficacy of the summit.

“Trump’s speech at Sharm el-Sheikh, with no mention of the Palestinian people, shows he does not intend to address the roots of the conflict. Without a Palestinian state and refugee settlement, this is just another painkiller, not a cure.”

Isolation or Strength?

The government-run Iran daily defended the decision to skip the summit, calling it a “Trump spectacle” to compensate for not winning a Nobel Peace Prize.

Tehran’s refusal to be part of the show, the paper said, underscored its “independent role amid geopolitical rivalries and chronic mistrust.”

But the reformist Ham Mihan rebuked that logic.

“If that is the case, why did you seek meetings with them (the Americans) at the United Nations?” it asked in its Tuesday editorial. “Such reasoning may appear principled but isolates the country further and defines Iran as outside the existing world order.”

Political analyst Majid Younesian, writing in the same paper, urged realism.

“Declining Egypt’s invitation is neither a waste of diplomatic opportunity nor a trap. The truth is that Iran’s state apparatus is still not ready to alter its approach toward engagement with the West,” he wrote.

Whether a sign of coordinated messaging or mere coincidence, the remarks—published across Iranian media on Sunday, October 12—suggest the establishment’s growing unease.

The trio were Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri, a former chief inspector of Khamenei’s office; Ali Shamkhani, a former security chief and current senior military adviser to Khamenei; and Massih Mohajeri, managing editor of Jomhouri Eslami, a newspaper founded by Khamenei in 1979 and still funded by his office.

The original sin

In a rare interview with the economic daily Donya-ye Eghtesad, Nateq Nouri reflected on the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, calling what became known as the Hostage Crisis “a big mistake.”

“That was the starting point of many of our troubles,” he said. “Don’t other embassies have intelligence sections? We seized the US embassy, and the Americans responded by seizing ours and freezing our assets. What followed was a chain of problems, actions and reactions that continue to this day.”

He added that more recent attacks on the embassies of UK and Saudi Arabia (2011, 2016) further damaged Iran’s foreign relations: “Those actions led to pressures and challenges in foreign policy that have brought us to this point.”

Nateq Nouri was widely believed to be Khamenei’s preferred candidate in the 1997 presidential election, which he lost to reformist Mohammad Khatami.

In 2009, he resigned his post in the leader’s office after Khamenei refused to intervene when then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused him and his family of financial corruption on state television.

Isolation: Avoidable

Another longtime Khamenei aide, Ali Shamkhani, acknowledged Iran’s shortcomings in air defense, blaming sanctions.

“We developed our missile industry, but we failed to invest in air defense,” he said. “Due to sanctions, no foreign country cooperates with us in the area of armament.”

Asked why Tehran never sought to purchase weapons abroad, Shamkhani replied, “The fact is, we are isolated. But we could have been less isolated.”

Shamkhani also admitted it was a mistake to underestimate U.S. support for Israel and overestimate Russia’s backing in wartime.

“Iran should have had nuclear bombs,” he concluded with a sigh. “I should have facilitated that when I was defense minister under president Khatami.”

The Final Sin?

Also on Sunday, the establishment daily Jomhouri Eslami ran an editorial lamenting that Hamas carried out its incursion into Israel on October 7, 2023.

“Despite many opinions and views, Operation Al-Aqsa was a mistake,” the editorial—likely authored by editor Massih Mohajeri—read.

The remark stands in stark contrast to Khamenei’s earlier praise for the attack, when he said he “kisses the hands” of those behind it.

The operation “was a storm with no winner,” the editorial argued, causing losses for Iran, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Qatar, and Gaza itself.

The rare chorus of regret from within Khamenei’s circle may suggest unease over the costs of the Islamic Republic’s decades-long policies. Whether such public reflections will lead to any meaningful recalibration remains the million-dollar question.

Lawmakers rejected the motion with 150 votes in favor, 73 against and nine abstentions out of 238 members present, Tasnim said. The proposal was sent to parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee for further review.

The bill was introduced by conservative lawmakers seeking to block implementation of Iran’s conditional approval to join the UN Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, one of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards that require countries to monitor and report financial transactions to curb money laundering and terror funding.

Earlier this month, Iran’s Expediency Council, which resolves disputes between parliament and the Guardian Council under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, gave conditional approval for joining the treaty after years of delay. The council said implementation would depend on guarantees that Iran’s economic and security interests would not be compromised.

Hardline lawmakers argue that joining the convention could expose Iran’s financial channels used to bypass US sanctions and support regional allies such as Hezbollah and armed groups in Iraq and Yemen. They say Iran should only join once all sanctions are lifted.

Supporters of the treaty, including some moderate lawmakers and economic officials, argue that compliance with FATF standards could help reconnect Iran’s banking system to global financial networks and attract foreign investment amid a severe economic downturn.

During a cabinet meeting on Sunday afternoon, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said while Egypt’s invitation for Pezeshkian was declined, another invitation was extended to him instead.

Araghchi later said on his X account that he too will not attend the Sharm El-Sheikh summit.

"While favoring diplomatic engagement, neither President Pezeshkian nor I can engage with counterparts who have attacked the Iranian People and continue to threaten and sanction us," he said.

The summit will bring together leaders from twenty countries in a bid “to end the war in the Gaza Strip, strengthen efforts to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East, and open a new chapter of regional security and stability,” according to the Egyptian presidency.

With Pezeshkian’s decision finalized, attention shifted to Araghchi. His potential participation could mark Tehran’s cautious engagement — signaling interest without fully endorsing the summit’s framework.

Had Araghchi accepted the invitation, Iran could define how it navigates its revolutionary identity while engaging with the emerging regional order shaped by the Trump-brokered Gaza ceasefire.

Tehran is split between those who view participation as a betrayal and those who see it as a diplomatic opportunity.

Many Iranians online pointed out that the decision to accept or reject such invitations ultimately depends on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s approval, not the president.

Reformists call it ‘historic opportunity’

Moderates and reformists urged Pezeshkian to seize what they called a rare diplomatic opening.

Prominent reformist journalists Mohammad Mohajeri and Mohammad Ghoochani issued a joint statement urging Pezeshkian “not to miss this historic opportunity.” They argued attending would not signify recognition of Israel but align with Iran’s strategy of indirect negotiation. Their message: “If (the chance in) New York (during the UNGA summit) was lost, seize Sharm el-Sheikh.”

In a post on X, former diplomat Hamid Aboutalebi, a longtime adviser to ex-president Hassan Rouhani, called the reported US invitation as “a positive and welcome signal,” even if informal. “It shows a desire to return to dialogue and constructive engagement,” he said, suggesting it could pave the way for “direct and comprehensive talks.”

Aboutalebi stressed that Iran had “paid a heavy price for the Palestinian cause for over four decades” and should not be absent as results are achieved.
He continued: “Iran’s role must not end with resistance — it should extend to reconstruction and state-building. Staying out would waste our strategic investments in the Axis of Resistance.”

Reformist figure Ghorbanali Salavatian echoed that sentiment in a post on X, urging Tehran to send former foreign minister Javad Zarif if it participates: “The Sharm el-Sheikh summit should be seen as an opportunity. Let’s remember — Israel is not attending.”

“The West and the Islamic world have agreed on a plan for Gaza. Iran should attend, reaffirm its stance, and engage with the world.” Playing on the host city’s name, he warned: “Don’t turn ‘Sharm el-Sheikh’ into shame for the officials!” wrote user Hamed Hesari on X.

Hardliners warn of betrayal

Hardline figures vehemently oppose any participation, arguing that sitting at a table hosted by Donald Trump would mean “recognizing the Zionist regime, accepting the defeat of the Palestinian cause, and undermining Hamas.”

Abdollah Ganji, former editor-in-chief of the IRGC-linked Javan newspaper, dismissed moderates and reformists’ calls to attend as “a new show by naïve dreamers.”

Hardline user Mohammad Sajjad Parchami posted: “The leg of Pezeshkian — or anyone representing the government — who wants to attend Sharm el-Sheikh must be smashed.”

Strategic arguments

Some foreign policy experts also backed participation on pragmatic grounds.

Analyst Reza Nasri wrote in a post on X that three decades after being excluded from the Madrid peace process, this summit could be “a new beginning.” He warned that Iran’s absence would allow others to “shape arrangements unfavorable to both Iran and Palestine.”

Former ambassador Nosratollah Tajik added in a post on X: “Iran’s absence won’t heal the Palestinians’ pain. Participation, however, would signal a new behavioral model — a soft power card that can become a lever of influence.”

In their joint statement, Ghoochani and Mohajeri further argued that participation could strengthen Iran’s ties with Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia and help reduce international ‘Iranophobia’ linked to the nuclear issue.

Criticism over indecision

Even before Pezeshkian declined the invitation, many criticized his indecision.

Moderate journalist Mostafa Faghihi posted on X: “It’s obvious Iran should attend — but we can easily predict it won’t. The decision must balance national interests, regime expediency, and the demands of hardliners.”

Veteran reformist journalist Ali Hekmat voiced frustration in a post on X: “This government lacks even the ability to influence complex situations on a limited scale. Mr. Pezeshkian has failed to deliver on his promises.”

A user posted with the hashtag #SharmElSheikh: “The people were wrong to think there was a difference between Raisi and Pezeshkian. This system makes everyone the same.”