Talk of a possible agreement between Tehran and Washington has intensified political attacks on parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a central figure in Iran’s diplomatic push and a politician widely seen as backing a more pragmatic approach to negotiations.
The pressure comes as parliament prepares to elect its new presidium on Monday.
An unusually blunt report published Sunday by the semi-official Iran Labour News Agency (ILNA) described what it called “organized destruction,” media pressure campaigns and coordinated text-message attacks targeting Ghalibaf ahead of the vote.
A lawmaker interviewed by ILNA, Rouhollah Lak Aliabadi, accused political rivals of orchestrating text-message campaigns against Ghalibaf in an effort to influence members of parliament before the leadership vote.
He said opponents were portraying support for negotiations as a form of surrender or deviation from revolutionary principles, even though decisions regarding diplomacy ultimately rest with Iran’s top leadership.
The attacks reflect broader tensions inside Iran’s conservative establishment as indirect negotiations with Washington appear to be gaining momentum.
US President Donald Trump struck a cautiously optimistic tone over the weekend, saying negotiators should “not rush into a deal” because “time is on our side,” while administration officials indicated progress had been made on the outlines of a possible agreement.
At the same time, officials and media outlets close to the Revolutionary Guards have emphasized deep skepticism toward Washington, insisting major disagreements remain unresolved and warning against excessive optimism.
Among the most contentious issues are restrictions affecting the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions relief, the future of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and the sequencing of commitments by both sides.
The growing attacks on Ghalibaf suggest hardliners fear that even a limited diplomatic breakthrough could shift the balance of power within the Islamic Republic toward figures advocating a more controlled and pragmatic form of engagement with the West.
A similar dynamic is also visible in Washington, where prominent Republican hawks and conservative commentators have begun warning against any agreement they believe would leave Iran’s military or nuclear infrastructure substantially intact.
Senator Ted Cruz has been among those signaling concern that the administration may be softening its position, while Democratic critics such as Senator Chris Murphy argue the war failed to achieve its objectives and ultimately left Tehran in a stronger position.
