Iran International
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is facing a fierce political backlash after signaling a conditional willingness to end the war, exposing deep divisions within Iran’s political and military establishment over diplomacy versus continued conflict.
In a phone call on Tuesday with European Council President Antonio Costa, Pezeshkian said Iran has the “necessary will” to bring the conflict to an end - provided that “essential conditions, especially guarantees to prevent renewed aggression, are met.”
Following Pezeshkian’s remarks, US President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that the “president of the new Iranian regime” had requested a ceasefire. Oil prices dipped slightly after the comments.
Iranian officials swiftly rejected Trump’s characterization. Mehdi Tabatabaei, the deputy for communications and information at the president’s office, responded on X:
“The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the defense of the nation against the aggression of evildoers and the conditions for ending the imposed war has not changed, and there is no regard for the delusions and lies of criminals.”
In a letter addressed to the American public published on Wednesday, Pezeshkian reiterated that Iran’s military actions were “purely a response and defense, not the initiation of war and aggression.” He described continued confrontation as “costly and fruitless,” signaling a more pragmatic tone from parts of the political establishment.
Hardliners and figures aligned with the security establishment have set stricter conditions for ending the war. Mohsen Rezaei, now a military adviser to Mojtaba Khamenei, has said the conflict should only end with reparations and guarantees, including the removal of US bases from the region.
Hardliner backlash intensifies
Pezeshkian’s comments triggered strong criticism from conservative and hardline figures. Lawmaker Hamid Rasaei described the remarks as evidence of a “wavering personality” and “passivity in the face of the enemy,” arguing that such positions could embolden further attacks.
Rasaei has previously compared Pezeshkian to Iran’s first president, Abolhassan Banisadr, who was removed from office by parliament for “political incompetence”. Similar comparisons have circulated widely on social media in recent days.
Some critics framed the conflict as a struggle between “truth and falsehood” and opposed any negotiated settlement short of total victory.
Calls for deterrence over diplomacy
In an open letter published on X, hardline activist Mohammad Shirakvand criticized Pezeshkian’s appeal for European guarantees, writing: “When you yourself state that the United States does not believe in diplomacy, what does speaking of guarantees for ending the war mean other than repeating a costly mistake?”
“This war is a battle of truth against falsehood and an arena of clashing wills. The government must play on this field, not on promises that have repeatedly proven unreliable,” he added.
Shirakvand argued that “real guarantees are not built through diplomacy, but through power and deterrence on the battlefield.”
Another widely shared post by a conservative account, Rah-e Dialameh, described Pezeshkian’s remarks as “sending a signal of weakness to the enemy,” linking them to the drop in oil prices and warning that such a strategy “must be stopped before it causes further damage.”
Some hardline users accused Pezeshkian of “sending ceasefire signals” and weakening Iran’s military posture, demanding that security authorities “control” him.
One user appeared to issue an implicit threat, suggesting authorities should restrict his public appearances “to protect his life,” claiming the country “is better managed on autopilot.”
Son defends the president’s stance
Amid escalating criticism, Pezeshkian’s son and adviser, Yousef Pezeshkian, publicly defended his father. He challenged critics’ logic, asking: “I do not understand the meaning of these criticisms; are we not seeking to meet conditions and obtain guarantees? Or are we seeking war until the complete destruction of America and Israel?”
He framed the president’s position as a realistic attempt at conditional de-escalation, contrasting it with what he implied were unrealistic or maximalist goals.
He also defended his father’s earlier apology to neighboring countries affected by Iranian strikes, calling it an “ethical duty” and highlighting efforts to maintain regional relations despite the conflict.
For many ordinary citizens, the psychological toll of constant airstrikes is profound. In the absence of an effective warning system, a near-permanent sense of insecurity dominates daily life.
Families—especially those with children or vulnerable members requiring medical care—have fled heavily targeted cities such as Tehran. Some of them have sought refuge in smaller towns and rural areas considered relatively safer from the repeated strikes that occur both day and night.
Those who have remained in their homes describe a life defined by constant anticipation of attacks.
Golshan, a woman living in Tehran with her two dogs, writes daily about her experiences on X. “Night is no longer a time for sleep—it is a field of waiting,” she wrote. “Waiting for a sound you don’t know where it will come from, but you are certain that when it does, something inside you will break.”
She added that she avoids using the elevator, fearing a sudden power outage could trap her and her pets during an attack.
Another user, Marzieh, described how even basic activities have become stressful. “Taking a shower has become anxiety-inducing for many,” she wrote, explaining that people fear being trapped mid-attack or losing water if the electricity is cut. “Every moment of their lives is filled with fear and worry.”
The International Committee of the Red Cross recently shared the account of a mother named Golnaz on X, describing the aftermath of an airstrike that cut off electricity and blew doors and windows off their hinges.
“After that, our home was no longer a safe place,” she said. She added that they had to move to her brother’s house, but even there her sons do not feel safe, so she is considering taking them somewhere far from the noise of war to recover from the shock.
Despite these conditions, some citizens say they are trying to preserve a sense of normalcy. They continue to visit cafés, walk in parks, and exercise outdoors whenever possible, attempting to maintain fragments of everyday life amid the uncertainty.
Reactions to the war’s broader implications remain deeply divided.
Supporters of the government describe the conflict as a “holy war” and insist it must continue until what they call “final victory.” Despite nightly bombardments, including during rainstorms, men and women who back the authorities continue to gather in city squares, chanting slogans and attending funerals for officials killed in the strikes.
Their presence is not limited to such rallies. According to social media reports, groups of pro-government men, alongside members of the Basij militia—sometimes including teenagers—patrol neighborhoods at night on motorcycles and pickup trucks.
They broadcast slogans over loudspeakers or play religious mourning songs late into the evening, adding to the strain of already sleepless nights for many residents.
Some Iranians express hope that continued strikes and the killing of government officials could lead to the collapse of the current system. One user wrote that relatives in Tehran become anxious when attacks appear to decrease, fearing that the war might end and “they”—meaning the Islamic Republic—might survive.
A user, Elham, shared the words of an acquaintance: “When there are no attacks, I get stressed that we’re still here and these savages are still in power."
"When the strikes happen, I’m so afraid I can only cry and wish for it to end quickly. I don’t even know what I want anymore. I just want them gone—and the war gone too," she added. “This is not a life anyone deserves. We wanted nothing more than an ordinary life.”
Those who share this view warn that an inconclusive end to the war could bring severe consequences: intensified repression of dissent, continued sanctions, widespread unemployment, the collapse of businesses, rising inflation—particularly in food prices—and potential shortages of electricity, water, and essential goods such as medicine.
Yet there is also a third group—neither aligned with government supporters nor hopeful that war will bring political change. These individuals simply call for an immediate end to the conflict.
A woman named Somayeh, opposing the continuation of the war, addressed both sides in a post: “Do you know what it feels like to hang a whistle around your neck and your child’s before going to sleep at night? If you don’t, then don’t tell me that war is the best thing for me.”
