US President Donald Trump said on Friday he was heading to the White House's Situation Room to make a final decision on an emerging deal with Iran, after saying parts of the arrangement had been agreed.
The remarks came one day after the US military struck an Iranian drone facility near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards reportedly responded by targeting an American base in the region, believed to be located in Kuwait.
In Tehran, lawmakers aligned with Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf — who is also leading Iran’s negotiating team — reacted positively to reports of progress, while hardline factions sharply criticized the negotiations.
Fada-Hossein Maleki, a member of parliament’s National Security Commission, spoke of “significant quantitative and qualitative progress” in the talks and claimed that “most proposals of the Islamic Republic have been accepted.”
According to Maleki, Iran’s main concern is “Trump’s unpredictability.” He also said Ghalibaf’s recent trip to Qatar focused on frozen Iranian assets and had produced positive results for Tehran.
By contrast, National Security Committee spokesman Ebrahim Rezaei criticized concessions in the negotiations during a televised interview. “Why should we even commit to the United States not to build a nuclear weapon?” he said.
Another lawmaker, Ruhollah Izadkhah, accused Ghalibaf of sidelining parliament. “Apparently, they intend to keep parliament shut so they can reopen the strait,” he said, adding: “The people will not allow it.”
Abolfazl Aboutorabi, another lawmaker, claimed that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s “red lines” regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear issue and compensation demands had been violated in the talks.
He accused Washington of trying to deceive Iran by offering “a lollipop” — referring to a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund without binding guarantees — in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. He also predicted that the United States would attack Iran again after the World Cup and US congressional elections.
Parisa Nasr, a market specialist, accused the negotiators of “surrenderism”. Writing online, she said: “First they turn Iran’s strategic assets into bargaining chips; then they effectively transform these into burned cards and worthless leverage; and finally, by arguing that ‘we have no winning cards left,’ they drag the country from one pit into another colonial surrender agreement.”
Doubts about a lasting agreement
Some Iranian social media users argue that even a signed agreement would not prevent future war. Others fear that if a temporary arrangement evolves into a durable settlement, hopes for political change inside Iran will fade significantly. Many in this camp believe Trump has abandoned the Iranian people and left them alone.
Saeed Mohammadi-Jazi, a trader and financial analyst, wrote on X that within a few months either a comprehensive agreement would be reached — ensuring the survival of the current system — or the region would face a “big and final” war that would determine the fate of the Islamic Republic.
Another user wrote: “A real nuclear agreement seems unlikely. Both sides will use this temporary calm to prepare for the next round of conflict — a conflict that may resume within months.”
Some ordinary users have also criticized Washington for negotiating with the Islamic Republic.
One user wrote on X: “A temporary Iran-US agreement — if it is signed — will not end Iran’s crisis. A regime emerging from this war will be weaker externally but stronger internally, and financially integrated into the global economy without the slightest accountability for what it has done.”
“The people who came into the streets in January and were killed were used as bargaining chips in this equation and then discarded once the deal was completed,” the user added.
A nation suspended between war and peace
Many Iranians are following developments minute by minute with growing anxiety. Ordinary citizens say the prolonged atmosphere of uncertainty has become more exhausting than anything else.
Sima, a Tehran resident, said the feeling of living in a “neither war nor peace” situation has affected every aspect of her life and the lives of those around her.
“So many times we thought a deal was close, and then within hours everything suddenly changed, and the threat of war escalated again — like last night’s clashes in the Persian Gulf and Bandar Abbas,” she said. “I truly felt again as if I could hear planes and missiles above my head. Fortunately, so far, neither side has said these clashes mean the ceasefire has collapsed.”
On Iranian news websites, reports on gold and currency prices continue to dominate headlines. Amid soaring inflation and political instability that have weakened the national currency, many Iranians have turned to buying foreign currency and gold. Yet a temporary agreement could sharply reduce the value of those investments if markets suddenly fall.
Morteza, a Tehran-based engineer, said he converted all of his savings intended for buying a home into US dollars several months ago. Although he believes an agreement — especially one leading to sanctions relief — could improve the economy, he says the uncertainty keeps him awake at night.
“When I was a child, after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, many people — including my father — suffered huge losses when Iran accepted the ceasefire resolution,” he said.
