Iran International
Iran’s lead negotiator and parliament speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf defended indirect talks with the United States in a televised interview Saturday after hardline critics accused him of “betrayal” and even hinted at a “coup” over the negotiations in Islamabad.
The backlash, which has intensified in recent days across hardline media and social platforms, prompted Ghalibaf to sit for a lengthy interview on state television aimed largely at persuading critics who reject any form of diplomacy and advocate continued confrontation.
In the interview, Ghalibaf framed negotiations not as a retreat but as a continuation of the conflict by other means. Diplomacy, he said, is neither a withdrawal from Iran’s demands nor separate from the battlefield, but a way to consolidate military gains and translate them into political outcomes and lasting peace.
Most notably, perhaps, he cautioned against exaggerating Iran’s leverage, stressing that US military superiority and capabilities should not be underestimated.
Hardline critics have intensified attacks on Ghalibaf, particularly on domestic social media platforms such as Eitaa, accusing him of ignoring red lines set by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and signaling weakness toward the United States.
One critic wrote in a post that “there is no good in negotiation except harm,” adding that Ghalibaf’s remarks suggested an optimism about progress in the talks that was “worrying.”
Another post went further, calling on the Revolutionary Guard to intervene and stop what it described as Ghalibaf’s “betrayal.”
Similar rhetoric has surfaced in nighttime gatherings by pro-government supporters, where speakers denounce negotiations and potential concessions—such as handing over enriched nuclear material, a core US demand—and chant slogans including “Death to compromisers.”
Ghalibaf did emphasize his personal commitment, declaring that for him there is no distinction between the battlefield and the negotiating table and that he is ready to sacrifice “both my life and my reputation” for “the people to attain their rights.”
The controversy widened after a social media account linked to ultrahardliner Saeed Jalili, a longtime political rival of Ghalibaf and a member of Iran’s national security council, published a post with the hashtag “coup plotter.”
The post called on Mojtaba Khamenei to publicly clarify his position if he indeed supports the negotiations, warning that without such confirmation officials could be accused of acting without the leader’s authorization.
The account was deactivated shortly afterward without explanation.
Jalili, who previously served as Khamenei’s representative on the Supreme National Security Council, has not commented publicly on the controversy, and there has been no official announcement about whether he retains that role under the current leadership.
Despite the backlash, several reformist figures have publicly backed Ghalibaf’s approach.
“A rare historical moment has placed Ghalibaf in a position where anyone who even slightly cares about Iran should support this rational soldier-politician and his decisions on war and peace,” Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice president under Mohammad Khatami wrote on X.
Journalist and commentator Ahmad Zeidabadi also defended him, arguing that volunteering to negotiate in such a tense environment required significant political and reputational risk.
Iranian media outlets have also offered differing interpretations of the interview. The conservative website Tabnak said Ghalibaf was outlining a strategic framework in which military strength, public support and diplomacy operate simultaneously.
The centrist outlet Asr-e Iran described the remarks as a broader roadmap for confronting the United States and Israel, arguing that diplomacy should be seen as a continuation of Iran’s battlefield resistance rather than a departure from it.
At least 36,500 Iranians were killed by the Islamic Republic during the January uprising, mostly on January 8 and 9, according to classified documents, field reports and witness accounts reviewed by Iran International, with the true toll believed by many to be far higher.
The dead included children, students and the elderly. Among the youngest victims frequently cited was three-year-old Melina Asadi.
One image from the unrest remains etched in public memory: a bloodied older woman standing in the street, fist raised, saying, “I’m not afraid. I’ve been dead for 47 years.”
Another was the sight of body bags. Videos that emerged despite the blackout showed rows of black bags lining courtyards, makeshift morgues overflowing and desperate families searching among the dead for loved ones.
Some bodies appeared with catheters and breathing tubes still in place, reinforcing witness claims that wounded protesters were killed after reaching hospitals.
One eyewitness, Kiarash — whose surname is being withheld for security reasons — described Tehran’s main cemetery as a “warehouse of bodies,” saying trucks continued arriving to unload more corpses as families waited outside.
The protests, which erupted in early January, were met with overwhelming force. Demonstrators demanding freedom were confronted with live fire, blades and military-grade repression.
Witnesses also described hospitals turned into extensions of the crackdown. Doctors and healthcare workers were allegedly threatened, detained or attacked for treating the injured. Some families say loved ones who survived initial gunfire were later killed inside hospital wards.
One such case was 17-year-old Sam Afshari, whose father told Iran International that after being wounded during protests in Karaj, his son was taken to hospital alive, placed on a breathing tube and then fatally shot.
“They finished him off,” his father said.
Authorities and some outside observers initially portrayed the unrest as primarily economic. But many Iranians rejected that narrative.
While anger first surfaced in the bazaars — historically seen as a pillar of the Islamic Republic’s support base — in late December, demonstrations quickly spread to universities, provincial towns and religious communities.
Unrest reached hundreds of cities and towns nationwide, according to reports reviewed by Iran International.
For many participants, this was not just another protest wave. It was the release of 47 years of accumulated pressure over repression, corruption, economic decline and personal freedoms.
Iranians were demanding a future not defined by compulsory social controls, state violence or a nuclear confrontation that repeatedly drags the country into crisis.
On January 8, authorities cut public access to the internet, triggering a 20-day digital blackout that rights groups say helped conceal the scale of the killings.
The blackout severely restricted access to independent information, communication with family abroad and documentation of abuses.
Iranian officials also acknowledged economic damage, with estimates placing losses in the tens of millions of dollars per day.
Trump support resonated with some protesters
During the uprising, support from US President Donald Trump drew significant attention.
For some Iranians, it mattered because memories of the 2009 Green Movement — the mass protest movement that erupted after disputed elections under President Barack Obama — still run deep. Many from that era felt the world did not do enough.
A few days after the January 8–9 massacre of protesters, Trump publicly backed demonstrators, writing: “Iranian patriots… KEEP PROTESTING… HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” He urged them to “take over your institutions” and warned the US was “locked and loaded.”
Despite mixed views on the effectiveness of a military campaign to topple the Islamic Republic, many Iranians felt so desperate that they wanted Trump to begin strikes as soon as possible.
He did so nearly 50 days after the massacre.
40-day war hits regime hard
On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated military campaign targeting the Islamic Republic’s leadership, nuclear infrastructure, missile systems, air defenses and internal security apparatus.
The operation included tens of thousands of strikes on military and strategic sites across Iran. Senior regime figures were killed, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in the most dramatic leadership blow since the 1979 revolution.
Other targets included IRGC commanders, Basij infrastructure, military production centers and strategic compounds tied to regime control. Iranian missile launchers and parts of the country’s strike capability were also heavily degraded.
For many Iranians who blamed these institutions for repression, torture and killings, the campaign was seen not simply as war, but as the first time the machinery used against them had itself come under sustained attack.
Videos reviewed by Iran International showed some Iranians thanking US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the strikes. Others celebrated in homes and streets, with some dancing to YMCA — the song closely associated with Trump rallies — seeing the moment as symbolic justice after years of suffering.
Others hoped the weakening of the regime’s coercive apparatus could create space for future protest and political change, as promised by both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yet even as parts of the repressive apparatus were hit, executions of prisoners and dissidents continued. Human rights groups say Iran carried out a record number of executions last year and warn the death penalty may be used even more aggressively after the war.
Diplomacy returns, questions remain?
The military campaign paused with the announcement of a two-week ceasefire on April 8, and the rhetoric has since shifted toward diplomacy: talk of deals, sanctions relief, frozen assets, and uranium transfers.
Iranian civil society groups have urged negotiators to include the release of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in any agreement, arguing peace without human rights would leave thousands behind.
For many Iranians, the central question remains unchanged: where are the Iranian people in these negotiations?
Those killed in the streets, in detention and in hospitals did not die for another nuclear arrangement, many argue, nor to see one insider replaced by another such as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
One hundred days later, Iran remains suspended between grief and uncertainty.
Some feel partially avenged by the killing of Khamenei and his commanders, and by the weakening of the regime. Others still hold out hope that change may come. But many say they fear the world has moved on without them.
