Tehran’s ‘Saint Mary’ station: symbol of tolerance or political prop?

“We are lying on wealth yet remain poor because of ourselves — the managers, officials, politicians and lawmakers — not America,” Pezeshkian said at a meeting of education managers in the central city of Isfahan. He urged local authorities to depend on people’s capacities instead of waiting for the state to act. “If you rely on the government, nothing will change in fifty years. But if you trust the people, you can achieve anything,” he said.

Pezeshkian said the growing desire among young Iranians to emigrate was troubling and reflected a loss of faith in the country’s future. “Why should our children think about leaving?” he asked. “Going abroad to study and learn is not bad, but believing that they must go and never return is a disaster,” he said. The president urged young people to gain knowledge overseas and bring it back to serve their homeland.

Warning over internal conflict

Iran’s main threat comes from domestic divisions rather than from the United States or Israel, Pezeshkian said. “I am not afraid of America or Israel. I fear our own disputes,” he said. “If we fight each other, we do not need enemies. We destroy ourselves.”

Pezeshkian voiced similar concerns on Wednesday, saying at a cabinet meeting that political infighting was a greater danger than foreign hostility, the state news agency IRNA reported. “I have no serious concern about plots by the United States or others, because their hostility is obvious,” he said. “But I am deeply worried about false divisions and efforts to blacken everything inside the country.”

Hardline lawmakers have opened impeachment moves against four of his cabinet ministers this month in what critics say is an attempt to paralyze his government. Pezeshkian, a relative moderate, has urged cooperation to restore public trust and ease growing hardship under renewed sanctions.

Trump urged Iran to recognize Israel and accept Washington’s conditions, telling Iranian officials, “We are ready when you are … It will be the best decision that Iran has ever made ... I’m telling you, they want to make a deal.”

However, he set some conditions: “Nothing would do more good for the Middle East than for Iran’s leaders to renounce terror, stop threatening their neighbors, quit funding their militant proxies, and finally recognize Israel’s right to existence.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rebuked Trump, accusing him of combining contradictory roles.

Tehran, Araghchi said, remains open to “respectful and mutually beneficial diplomatic engagement,” but would not “accept being used as a pretext for normalization with Israel under unjust terms.”

'They want an obedient Iran'

State media emphasized Tehran’s wariness, declaring Iran’s hesitation stems from a “lack of trust.”

“Iran's return to the negotiating table will not come through an invitation to Sharm el-Sheikh or through threats made in the Tel Aviv Knesset, but only through respectful and reasonable conduct," the government-run news outlet IRNA wrote.

"This is the first principle of engaging in talks with Iran—so that any negotiation can become a win–win deal for both sides.”

The Revolutionary Guards (IRGC)-linked Tasnim News Agency described Trump’s peace proposal as “part of a broader strategy to impose America’s will on Iran."

Fars News Agency, also linked to the IRGC, cited Khamenei's remarks in August: “Those who argue over why we do not negotiate directly with the US are superficial in my view. The essence of the matter is not like that; this issue is insoluble. They want Iran to be obedient to the United States.”

Ultra-hardline social media voices suggested talks should occur only after demonstrating strategic strength.

“From Trump’s statements at the summit and the Knesset, it is clear that he seeks Iran’s complete submission, to the extent that Iran would even recognize Israel," conservative commentator Erfan Pazhuhandeh wrote on X.

This means that neither war nor tensions is entirely off the table.”

'Iran never denied Jew's right to live'

Reformists and moderates insist engagement is the only viable path.

Former President Hassan Rouhani, addressing former government officials after the Sharm el-Sheikh summit and Gaza peace agreement, said, “Negotiating with the world is difficult but possible, and the binary choice of war or surrender is incorrect.”

He urged Iran to find “another path, which is the path of engagement.”

Commentator Mohammad Sadegh Hosseini told Etemad that Trump has both the motivation and capacity to reach a deal before US midterm elections, but any agreement depends on Iran.

He argued that two of Trump’s three conditions—refraining from supporting terrorists and avoiding regional hostility— are manageable. The third, recognition of “Israel’s right to existence”, as Trump put it, “could potentially be achieved through practical mechanisms, he argued.

“Iran has never denied the right of Jews to live," he added." Planning can be done in a way that aligns with Iran’s fundamental strategies.”

Reformist politician Ahmad Shirzad told Etemad that only a practical, actionable proposal with clear negotiation terms would allow Iran to properly assess the offer.

“Public discussions like these—remarks at the Knesset or Sharm el-Sheikh—are neither reassuring nor alarming,” he added.

“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.

Born in 1941 in Abadan, in Iran’s southern oil fields, Taghvai emerged as a defining voice of the Iranian New Wave that reshaped the nation’s cinema in the 1960s and ’70s.

His early feature Tranquility in the Presence of Others (1970) was praised for its psychological realism and banned for its critique of authority.

The 1976 television series My Uncle Napoleon, satirizing despotic rule and a conspiratorial mindset, became a cultural touchstone still quoted in everyday conversation.

Taghvai won international acclaim with his 1987 film Captain Khorshid — an adaptation of Hemingway’s To Have and Have Not.

After a twelve-year hiatus, he returned with Paper Without Lines (Kaghaz bi Khat, 2001). The film won the Special Jury Prize at Iran’s Fajr Film Festival, but Taghvai did not attend the gala and later refused the award altogether.

“Please excuse me from accepting the Crystal Simorgh statuette and the voucher toward buying a car,” he wrote in his letter of withdrawal with characteristic irony.

“I am ashamed before each of the fair-minded jurors whose good intentions favored my work, but I must inform you that I have neither the money to buy a car nor the space in my small home to keep the grandest of prizes.”

‘I no longer wait’

That blend of humor and quiet defiance defined his later years, when he turned away from filmmaking altogether—a protest, he said, against a system that had hollowed out the very idea of art.

“As long as I have to ask someone’s permission to make a film, I won’t make one,” he said in a rare appearance at a guild event.

“By not making films, I’m trying, in my own small way, to help bring down this cinema, so that maybe something new can grow in its place.”

Taghvai’s silence became his final creative act — a refusal to participate in what he called the “collapse of cinema into obedience.”

For him, cinema was inseparable from dignity. His life traced a radical arc: from helping to create modern Iranian cinema to standing apart from it when he believed it had lost its soul—taken over by crude, clueless censors.

“The person who reads the screenplay has no idea what cinema even is,” he once said when asked about obtaining permission from Iran’s culture ministry.

“So I no longer waste my time—and I no longer wait.”