Iran International
Tehran’s messaging this week suggests it may be open to a limited agreement with Washington, but its preconditions leave little room for a deal that US President Donald Trump deemed 'probable' this week.
A Reuters report on Thursday quoted two regional sources as saying Iran asked Saudi Arabia to help persuade the United States to restart nuclear talks, a day after Trump said Iran wanted a deal and he would "probably" make it.
In Tehran, however, Iranian media coverage and official commentary depict a divided polity where routine hints at diplomacy collide with immovable red lines of ideology and strategy.
The result, as the moderate outlet Fararu put it, is a “total halt” and a “dangerous deadlock” in Tehran’s approach to Washington.
“The two sides have reached a deadlock that can escalate to the point of no return,” political analyst Ali Bigdeli warned. “I do not want to use the word war, but when diplomacy cannot go any further, war will be looming.”
The adviser
Fararu and other outlets framed their analyses around remarks aired by CNN from Kamal Kharrazi, a senior aide to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who heads the influential Council for Foreign Relations.
In the interview, Kharrazi laid out two conditions for any talks with the United States: they must be conducted “on equal footing and with mutual respect,” and they must follow an agreed agenda.
He then undercut Tehran’s long-proclaimed openness to diplomacy with two firm caveats: Iran will discuss only the levels of its uranium enrichment, not a halt; and it will “categorically” refuse to put its missile program on the table.
Earlier this week, nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami told a Foreign Ministry gathering that the United States and its allies had triggered “a new round of dangerous escalation.”
At the same event, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi argued that despite Trump’s comments on Iran’s readiness for dialogue, “the West is not prepared for negotiations,” adding that Tehran is in no hurry to sit down.
The message
Media commentary intensified during the Washington visit of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The most debated claim was that President Massoud Pezeshkian had sent a message—via the Crown Prince—to Donald Trump.
Nour News, close to former national security chief Ali Shamkhani, denied this on Thursday, insisting Pezeshkian’s communication concerned only next year’s Hajj. But some critics noted the timing suggested otherwise.
Others argued that even if such a message had been sent, it would carry little weight, since Trump sees Khamenei as the only decision-maker who matters.
Khamenei’s position, they argued, is best read through the words of his foremost senior foreign policy adviser, Kharrazi.
The outlook
Whether Trump will entertain the idea of talks under Kharrazi’s terms remains uncertain. But the signs are not encouraging.
Kharrazi’s proposed framework mirrors what Tehran floated in late May and early June—and we know how that ended.
Even Trump’s cautious optimism during his joint appearance with the Crown Prince—saying he would “probably” forge a deal with Iran—lacked conviction.
It was a promise punctuated and punctured by a dealmakers’ shrug: “We will see.”
Pezeshkian said the pressure on water, land and infrastructure had left the government with “no option” but to act. “When we said we must move the capital, we did not even have enough budget. If we had, maybe it would have been done. The reality is that we no longer have a choice; it is an obligation,” he said in a speech in Qazvin.
He said Tehran now faces “catastrophe” as land in parts of the capital sinks by up to 30 centimeters a year and water supplies shrink. “When we say the land subsides 30 centimeters each day, this means disaster,” he said. He warned that mismanagement, construction in upstream areas and cuts to downstream water flows risk irreversible damage.
Pezeshkian said officials across government must work together or “a dark future” awaits. “Protecting the environment is not a joke,” he said. “Ignoring it means signing our own destruction.”
The president said the mismatch between water resources and demand had reached a breaking point. “We can bring water from the Persian Gulf, but it will be costly,” he said, arguing that Tehran’s population and construction load can no longer expand.
Makran: potential and limits
Iran announced in January that the government was studying plans to move the capital to the southern Makran coast, a remote region overlooking the Gulf of Oman. Officials said the shift could ease Tehran’s overcrowding, energy shortages and water stress.
The idea has surfaced repeatedly since the 1979 revolution but has stalled due to political resistance and soaring costs. Past administrations explored alternatives including Semnan, Qom and Isfahan but financial constraints halted progress.
Officials have said Makran’s coastline offers access to the Indian Ocean and a base for sea-linked economic projects. The area includes Chabahar, Iran’s only oceanic port and a gateway to Central Asia.
But critics say the region is underdeveloped, exposed to security risks and far from ready to host a national capital. Opponents argue the country cannot afford the tens of billions of dollars such a move would require at a time of economic strain, high inflation and renewed UN sanctions.
The university closed the exhibition at its Fine Arts Faculty despite thousands queuing to visit each night following a sharply worded protest from the faculty’s Student Basij militia, which accused the event of turning the campus “into a venue for displaying deviance from norms.”
Videos circulating from the event showed female attendees without the mandatory veil, men and women freely mingling and live music performances with political undertones—scenes that angered conservative groups.
Senior cleric Mostafa Rostami, who heads the nationwide body of the Supreme Leader’s representatives to Iranian universities, called the event a “bitter incident.”
“Turning art into anti-culture and non-art is the result of a planned operation to target universities,” he posted on X, suggesting the event was a foreign plot. Authorities, he added, “will not yield one bit” when it comes to preserving Islamic norms.
Too Western
Conservative media also joined the backlash.
The hardline tabloid Saed News lamented the live music and unveiled visitors in a story headlined, “Tehran University’s Disgrace Outraged Everyone: How Far in Breaking Taboos?”
Mashregh News, aligned with the Revolutionary Guards, accused private brands and designers of using Design Week as a marketing opportunity, relying “heavily on Western visual patterns” and even featuring unveiled women in promotional materials.
Many attendees, meanwhile, expressed disappointment at the event’s abrupt end.
Architect and former lecturer Mona Khatami wrote on X: “I was so happy that an event like this had brought people into the university, but as usual, our joy didn’t last long: today they cancelled it.”
'We are the many’
The University of Tehran initially announced that the exhibition was being stopped “because of unprecedented crowding” and “safety risks linked to the visual installations and electrical equipment.”
But few believed the explanation.
“We expected something to happen all along,” Arshiya, an art student, told Iran International. “Every section of the exhibition … reminded those who have the power to stop such events that we are many and they are few.”
An underground activist group, the Progressive Students of Isfahan University, described Tehran Design Week on X as an expression of “modernism, opposition to the compulsory hijab and gender segregation and youth liberation,” calling it a symbol of resistance to regressive cultural controls.
‘Sad but expected’
One especially contentious element of Design Week was its fashion section, held at private venues, where models and designers presented contemporary clothing including outfits worn without the veil.
Videos from these showcases appear to have played a central role in provoking the conservative backlash, with critics framing the relaxed dress and atmosphere as a direct challenge to state-imposed norms.
A commentary in the moderate outlet Rouydad24 argued that organizers had crossed Tehran University’s cultural “red lines,” predicting that future design exhibitions in similar venues may face increased restrictions.
It also noted that the sight of visitors openly defying hijab rules on the Tehran University campus echoed “a message rooted in the 2022 protests,” in which students played an influential role.
As the commentary put it: “It is clear that the factions that for four decades have spared no effort to silence dissent within the university were never going to remain quiet in the face of such a display.”
Under a new directive titled “We Defend Our Iran,” the ministry ordered classes from elementary to high school to praise the actions of the country's leadership, military and people.
The new educational materials reviewed by Iran International were distributed to schools and made available online earlier this month.
The program aims to cultivate patriotic virtue, according to a directive signed by Education Minister Alireza Kazemi and circulated to provincial departments.
The initiative was “a tribute to the miraculous endurance of the Iranian nation during the 12-day imposed war,” he wrote.
New study materials, Kazemi added, seek to “strengthen national dignity, unity and deterrence,” and to raise students who can “face social and political challenges responsibly and wisely.”
Battle of narratives
As Iran-US nuclear talks appeared to falter, Israel launched a surprise military attack on its Mideast arch-foe on June 13.
The strikes killed senior nuclear scientists along with hundreds of military personnel and civilians. Iranian counterattacks killed 32 Israeli civilians and an off-duty soldier.
Joining the conflict, the United States attacked three Iranian nuclear sites and Iran responded with missile attacks on a US airbase in Qatar before US President Donald Trump enforced a ceasefire.
Israel promptly said it had achieved its military goals while Trump declared Iran's nuclear program had been "obliterated."
Tehran officialdom quickly said the US ceasefire sought to prevent further damaging missile volleys and that Iran had prevailed in the war, emerging more unified.
Hack Israeli jets
The new educational materials cast this doctrine as moral and patriotic truth, extending from missile engineering to nuclear research.
One high school assignment instructs pupils to “hold a class debate on the advantages and disadvantages of enriching uranium inside the country versus importing enriched uranium.”
Another adds: “Write a two-page outline for a movie in which Iranian students hack into the computer systems of Israeli fighter jets and change the course of events. Share your plan with your teacher and classmates.”
The tone is lively, even playful, framing national defense as a creative activity comprehensible to children.
Iranian officials quickly and now routinely characterize the perseverance of Iran's ruling system as a victory in itself and the messaging now extends beyond sermons and television news programs to the classroom.
Authorities have quashed with deadly force several youth-led protest movements in recent decades and style themselves a bulwark against foreign-led sedition plots.
Still, the course materials indicate Tehran remains determined to purvey state ideology on Iran's youth.
The textbook for younger students, “The 12-Day War,” sets out twenty-five hours of classroom teaching that encourage pupils to see unity, creativity and belief as the reasons Iran prevailed. The lessons blend moral stories with political instruction and domestic detail, grounding the idea of national defense in everyday life.
In one chapter, children visit their grandparents’ home. Over tea, the adults recall the war. “Israel thought it could disrupt the country by killing our commanders,” says Uncle Hossein in the story, “but our Leader quickly appointed successors and restored order.”
The grandfather adds, “Iran had long prepared itself for defense and built powerful, precise missiles for such days.” The grandmother reminds the children that “people helped each other during those days,” while the narrator concludes, “When we are united with our Leader, like one family, we are at our strongest.”
The chapter ends with the line that gives the book its theme: “We are stronger together.” It turns survival into a moral lesson about obedience, faith and collective strength.
Elsewhere, QR codes lead to short video clips. One shows schoolgirls, around nine years old, singing, “This is Iran. If anyone looks at my country the wrong way, I will not forgive them. If needed, I will sacrifice myself. I’m a girl, but I’m strong. God is with me.”
In Islam, nine marks the age of religious maturity for girls, giving the performance a note of solemn duty beneath its cheer.
Other exercises tie national defense to civic behavior. Students are asked to draw family members helping during blackouts or natural disasters, and to write short reflections on how “science and faith together protect the homeland.”
The blending of domestic scenes, religious devotion and military imagery makes the idea of resistance feel both intimate and ordinary.
Israel 'unnatural, dangerous'
Across all levels, Israel is portrayed as the main disruptor of peace in the region and the United States as its enabler.
High-school materials offer more advanced characterizations of arch-enemy Israel, calling it an “unnatural and dangerous regime” and asks students to prove it visually. “With three simple pictures,” it instructs, “show your classmates why Israel is an unnatural and dangerous regime. For example: it has no fixed borders.”
Another prompt begins with: “In your opinion, what does the fact that the Israeli regime, unlike other countries, has no defined borders say about its nature?”
Students are then guided to make an infographic to express the point. At the top of the page, they are told to write: "Israel is unnatural and dangerous because" and fill in the rest with short captions and sketches.
Safavid rout
In some of the new exercises, students are asked to name and build paper models of Iranian missiles and discuss how families can help defend the country.
Another passage recalls the 1514 Battle of Chaldiran, when Safavid Iran lost to the Ottomans for lacking modern weapons, a parable of vigilance and modernization.
Other sections teach how to manage blackouts or natural disasters, blending civic duty with preparedness for crisis.
The book deepens the use of national history in the curriculum, drawing on Shah Ismail Safavid and earlier dynasties alongside Islamic and revolutionary narratives, part of a broader effort to fuse religion, statehood and pride in Iranian endurance.
That emphasis mirrors the nationalist tone of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s speeches following the war. Citing a coup in 1921 and the 1953 US-backed overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, he has urged Iranians to remember “both sweet victories and bitter events” so that “they are not repeated.”
He described the United States as “inherently arrogant,” blamed foreign powers for Iran’s historic setbacks, and told young people that “the remedy for many of our problems is to become strong.”
In his telling, national power in its military, scientific, and moral forms is the safeguard of independence, a message now embedded in the nation’s classrooms.
That same logic now shapes how the next generation is taught: Iran’s strength, the school materials aim to ensure, must be shored up by its next generation.
