US President Donald Trump talked up negotiations with Iran on Wednesday before quickly adding that hitting harder was still on the table.
In Tehran, a widening group of moderate, centrist and pragmatic conservative figures are warning the leadership that wartime solidarity cannot be taken for granted and that failure to change course could deepen Iran’s political and economic crisis.
Former MP and prominent moderate Mohsen Mirdamadi said in a May 20 interview with Etemad newspaper that “Iran’s most important assets are its people,” warning the government against overlooking that reality.
“Failing to recognize and appreciate this key asset is more dangerous than the destruction of any infrastructure,” he said.
Mirdamadi asserted that the war had strengthened many Iranians’ sense of patriotism. This public empathy, he argued, creates a responsibility for the government to enact meaningful changes in its policies in order to restore hope in the future.
“Give-and-take and balance are essential for reaching the optimal point,” he said, warning that those “beating the drums of war” could eventually force Iran’s leadership to “drink the chalice of poison” — a reference to accepting painful compromises too late rather than pursuing a timely agreement.
Similar warnings have increasingly appeared even in parts of the conservative camp.
On Wednesday, the conservative daily Jomhouri Eslami urged officials “not to provoke non-belligerent countries against Iran” and warned that threatening friendly states or discussing attacks on undersea communication cables in the Persian Gulf would only deepen hostility toward Tehran.
The paper also called on opponents of negotiations with the United States to reconsider their stance, arguing that constructive engagement with non-hostile countries could benefit Iran.
Other outlets focused on the domestic implications of the war atmosphere.
Rouydad24 warned authorities against using the conflict as a pretext to further restrict civil liberties, including internet access.
“Sustainable security is a product of justice, welfare, and trust in government, not restrictions and pressure on the people,” the outlet wrote, adding that “citizenship rights are not a luxury.”
Conservative commentator Mohammad Mohajeri similarly warned that wartime unity could prove fragile if the government fails to recognize growing public dissatisfaction.
“The government must understand that no war lasts forever,” Mohajeri told Etemad. “Eventually, there will have to be a ceasefire, an agreement or a mechanism to manage the crisis.”
Ali Rabiei, an adviser to President Masoud Pezeshkian, echoed the same concern in comments published by Etemad.
“We have no asset other than the people,” Rabiei wrote. “Please do not allow them to become polarized or fragmented as this is exactly what our enemies want.”
Yet the growing chorus of calls for pragmatism is unfolding alongside signs that Iran’s hardline camp is becoming more radicalized and more tightly aligned around confrontation.
While moderate and pragmatic voices may be broadening across parts of the political spectrum, it is the security establishment and its allies who still appear to hold the upper hand.
Calls for pragmatism are visibly rising. Whether anyone with real hard power is listening is far less clear.
