Supporters of the ultra-hardline Paydari Front were removed earlier this week from nightly state-organized rallies backing the Islamic Republic, in an apparent effort to contain hardline pressure as talks with the United States continue, Iran International has learned.
According to the information obtained by Iran International, the order to keep Paydari supporters away from the gatherings was issued after requests by President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also heads Tehran’s negotiating team.
Protesters carrying placards opposing concessions on the nuclear issue have also been removed from the state-backed rallies, according to the same information.
The move points to an effort by senior figures in the Islamic Republic to contain ultra-hardline pressure at a sensitive moment, as Tehran and Washington continue talks over a possible understanding involving the ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz, frozen Iranian assets and nuclear-related terms.
The Paydari Front and its allies have been among the most vocal opponents of negotiations with the United States. In recent days, figures close to the camp have criticized Ghalibaf and the negotiating team, warning against concessions and arguing that talks with Washington amount to a mistake.
The reported removals came as the Islamic Republic held the first anniversary ceremony for Ruhollah Khomeini since the killing of Ali Khamenei, without the former supreme leader’s presence.
During the ceremony on Thursday, Mojtaba Khamenei issued a message warning against what he called doubt, despair, fear and suspicion.
The message, read by Mohammad-Javad Haj-Ali-Akbari, Tehran’s interim Friday prayer leader, said any action that causes public pessimism or disillusionment amounts to helping the enemy.
Lebanon has emerged as a key obstacle to negotiations between Tehran and Washington, as Israel says it will continue striking Hezbollah and Iran insists that any ceasefire must apply across the region.
The dispute intensified after Tehran suspended talks with Washington on Monday, arguing that Israeli military operations in Lebanon violated the broader ceasefire framework established after the recent US-Iran conflict.
While US President Donald Trump described the interruption as a temporary “little glitch,” Iranian officials have since made clear that a halt to Israeli military operations in Lebanon remains a prerequisite for renewed diplomatic engagement.
On Tuesday, Fars News Agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), cited an informed source as rejecting Trump's claims about ongoing, high-speed negotiations.
According to the source, exchanges of messages between Tehran and Washington had stopped “at least for a few days,” while Iran's latest communication to the United States was described as “a clear warning regarding Lebanon.”
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of parliament and head of Iran's negotiating team, accused the United States of failing to uphold ceasefire commitments, saying on X that enforcement of a naval blockade and Israel's attacks on Lebanon were “clear evidence of US non-commitment to the ceasefire.”
“Every choice has a price, and the bill comes due,” he added.
Ghalibaf later said he had informed Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri that Iran would not only suspend negotiations but would also be “in direct confrontation with the enemy” if Israeli attacks on Lebanon continued.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed that position, writing on X that a “ceasefire between Iran and the US is unequivocally a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” He added that any violation on one front “shall be considered a violation across all fronts.”
Tehran sees leverage in talks
With Tehran linking progress in negotiations to developments in Lebanon, the fate of any future agreement increasingly appears tied to the trajectory of the Israel-Hezbollah confrontation.
Some Iranian lawmakers believe Washington will ultimately seek to restrain Israel to prevent a broader crisis.
Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told Tabnak that the United States would likely increase pressure on Netanyahu's government to avoid further escalation.
Tabnak itself argued that Tehran could use the negotiations as leverage.
“Given that Hezbollah—Iran's most powerful regional ally—entered the conflict immediately following the attacks on Iran, Tehran could leverage the threat of walking away from ongoing negotiations to pressure the United States into restraining Israel,” the outlet wrote.
Growing doubts about a deal
Despite such expectations, several analysts expressed pessimism about the prospects for a final agreement between Tehran and Washington.
Hassan Hanizadeh, a senior analyst on Middle Eastern affairs, told Fararu that Israel's intensified military campaign in Lebanon was “directly designed to pressure Iran and can pose a major risk to the formation of any understanding between Tehran and Washington.”
He argued that Tehran views the attacks as part of broader Western pressure tactics and added: “Evidence shows that Trump has no desire for a comprehensive agreement in the current atmosphere.”
Amir-Ali Abolfath, an expert on US affairs, also questioned the likelihood of a breakthrough.
Speaking to Fararu, he said Israel's confrontation with both Iran and Hezbollah had made negotiations significantly more complicated than in previous rounds.
“The Americans are negotiating to not reach an agreement,” he said. “America proposes conditions that make it seem as though they are shouting: ‘We do not want to reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic,’ because their conditions are unfeasible.”
Other commentators voiced similar doubts. Reza Ghobeishawi, writing in Asr-e Iran, argued that Trump has concluded a deal with Tehran is unattainable and is instead using discussions over reopening the Strait of Hormuz to buy time.
As Tehran reviews US proposals and influential figures increasingly speak openly in favor of negotiations, developments on the ground are pulling Iran and the United States in the opposite direction.
The contrast was on display this week as senior Shiite cleric Ayatollah Jafar Sobhani publicly endorsed negotiations with Washington while fresh military exchanges across the Gulf highlighted the risk of renewed escalation.
Quoted by several Iranian outlets on Tuesday, Sobhani said “we should back negotiations and follow a good outcome from them, and a good negotiation must be based on the collective and national interests of the country.”
The remarks were among the clearest signs yet that influential clerical circles are prepared to publicly back diplomacy.
Several newspapers also published composite images showing chief negotiator and parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf alongside IRGC commander Ahmad Vahidi, appearing to emphasize unity among senior officials as Tehran reviews US proposals.
Ghalibaf has also been quoted as saying Iran is examining Washington’s suggestions, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week that negotiations over the language of a possible agreement could be be concluded within days if progress continues.
Yet the diplomatic signals have coincided with renewed escalation on the ground. Iranian attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain, and US strikes on Iranian targets in the early hours of Wednesday, underscored how fragile any diplomatic opening remains.
At the same time, hardline rhetoric has continued inside Iran. A group of lawmakers on Tuesday called for expanding the range of Iran’s missiles until they could reach Washington.
The competing narratives were also laid bare in an interview with veteran diplomat and US expert Abbas Maleki in Sharq newspaper, and another with conservative analyst Hassan Hanizadeh published by Fararu.
Hanizadeh outlined ongoing indirect contacts between Tehran and Washington while warning that President Donald Trump’s approach could amount to a delaying tactic aimed at securing broader strategic advantages.
Yet unlike many conservative commentators, he did not reject negotiations outright. Instead, he acknowledged that Iran had already conveyed a five-point proposal to Washington through Pakistani intermediaries and argued that talks could be acceptable if they safeguarded national interests and delivered sanctions relief.
Maleki placed greater emphasis on diplomacy itself, describing it as a pillar of national power and pushing back against factions that rely primarily on military force.
He characterized the current phase of Iran-US relations as one of “suspension,” requiring diplomatic engagement to manage the aftermath of the conflict and protect Iran’s interests.
Despite their differences, both men portrayed negotiations as a necessary component of statecraft rather than a concession.
The limits of establishment support for diplomacy were also underscored by the conservative daily Farhikhtegan, which revisited the experience of the 2015 nuclear deal and described it as a “strategic error.”
The paper argued that any future agreement must satisfy two conditions: reversibility and multilateral guarantees.
Iran, it said, should retain the ability to immediately reverse any commitments if Washington defaults, while financial and political mechanisms should involve other international actors to raise the cost of a future US withdrawal.
While influential clerics, politicians and commentators increasingly portray negotiations as necessary, military confrontation continues to shape the political environment.
The result is a moment in which preparations for a deal and preparations for further conflict appear to be unfolding simultaneously.
Israel's new Mossad chief Roman Gofman took office Tuesday with a clear message: the campaign against Tehran is far from over, as Israel's outgoing spy chief and prime minister openly framed regime change in Iran as an achievable goal.
Gofman assumed leadership of Israel's intelligence agency with a vow to continue Mossad's covert campaign against Iran and its allies.
Israel's actions against Iran and its regional network had altered the balance of power in the Middle East, Gofman said at a welcoming ceremony.
"But the task is not yet complete. The heart of the Mossad lies in covert operations against its targets. We will safeguard that mission at all costs."
Standing beside him, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the intent clearer, declaring that Iran's ruling system was destined to disappear.
"This regime of terror, whose fate is to pass from the world — and we will help it reach that destination — will not again threaten us with nuclear bombs and thousands of deadly ballistic missiles," he said.
The message echoed the farewell address of outgoing Mossad chief David Barnea, who publicly framed regime change in Tehran as a possible objective.
"Regime change in Iran is a possible and achievable goal," Barnea said. "This is a possible mission, and it is clear that this will require determination, patience, and adherence to the goal."
That is the agency Gofman now inherits: one openly encouraged by Israel's leadership to keep Iran at the center of its covert war, and possibly to think beyond containment.
A soldier takes the reins
Unlike several previous Mossad directors, Gofman is not a career intelligence officer. Born in Belarus in 1976, when it was part of the Soviet Union, he immigrated to Israel with his family in 1990 and built his career in the military before serving as Netanyahu's military secretary.
His appointment has generated debate in Israel because he comes from outside the traditional Mossad establishment. Supporters see him as a battle-tested commander with firsthand experience confronting Iran and its allies, while critics question whether a close Netanyahu confidant without a traditional intelligence background should lead the country's premier spy agency.
Gofman also arrives with a reputation for personal bravery.
"He is a very brave man," Alex Winston, a news editor at The Jerusalem Post, told Iran International.
Winston pointed to Gofman's actions on October 7, when he rushed to join the fighting after learning of the Hamas attacks.
Security camera footage later released online showed him fighting Hamas at a junction in southern Israel before being wounded and evacuated for treatment.
"He literally got in his car, went downstairs to fight Hamas terrorists," Winston said.
Despite the questions surrounding his appointment, Winston believes Gofman's years of service and battlefield experience have prepared him for the role.
"The fate of Israelis around the world and the Jewish people around the world is now in his hands," he said.
What it means for Iran
For Israeli analysts who closely follow Iran, Gofman's appointment signals continuity, and perhaps escalation.
"Roman is a very hard guy against Iran," Beni Sabti, an Iran researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), told Iran International.
Sabti believes Gofman's upbringing in the Soviet Union shaped his views toward authoritarian regimes.
"We have to remember that he comes from Russia and his culture and childhood is full of experience from Soviet Union that seems so similar like the Iran regime," he said.
According to Sabti, Gofman's years as military secretary gave him an unusually close view of Israel's strategy toward Tehran. "He knows maybe more than anyone about the operations, about how Iranians think, what should Israel do."
Sabti expects Gofman to focus not only on Iran's nuclear and missile programs but also on Tehran's network of regional proxies, particularly Hezbollah.
"He has a knife between his teeth," Sabti said, using a Hebrew expression for someone relentless and aggressive.
The researcher predicted Gofman would seek to expand covert operations, intelligence gathering and agent recruitment while increasing pressure on Iran's regional activities and financial networks. He also expects the new Mossad chief to place a strong emphasis on countering Hezbollah and disrupting Iran's proxy network across the region.
Winston said confronting Tehran and preventing it from rebuilding its regional influence will remain the agency's top priority.
"We definitely have to deal with this problem. This is the utmost priority," Winston said.
"That's going to be his goal. That's his priority."
For some Iranians, Mossad has become more than an intelligence agency.
Sogand Fakheri, an Israeli-Iranian actress from the TV show Tehran, which chronicles Mossad agents inside Iran, said she regularly hears from Iranians looking for ways to help efforts against the Islamic Republic.
"A lot of Iranians inside Iran sent me messages for so long that they want to help the Mossad and how can they do it," Fakheri, who is also an Iran analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA) told Iran International.
"People want to join, people want to help the Mossad, people want to cooperate with anyone who would come to help them."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday night that the foundations of Iran’s ruling system had “cracked” and that it would eventually fall.
Speaking at a farewell ceremony for outgoing Mossad chief David Barnea, Netanyahu said Iran had already paid a heavy price, according to a statement form the prime minister’s office.
“The foundations of this terrorist regime in Iran have cracked. It will never return to what it was, and I tell you – it will fall in the end,” Netanyahu said.
He also warned that anyone plotting against Israel would fail and pay a heavy price.
“Let anyone who plots evil against Israel know that their schemes will fail. The price they will pay will be heavy indeed,” he said.
Netanyahu praised the Mossad as one of Israel’s major global “brands” and thanked Barnea for 30 years of service, including five years as its director.
Barnea urges regime change in Iran
The outgoing Mossad chief also said Israel should remain committed to toppling Iran’s ruling system.
Barnea said the Islamic Republic was at its weakest after the recent war and that Israel should “complete the job.”
“I believed, and I still believe, that a change in the reality in Iran by virtue of toppling the regime is a possible and achievable goal,” Barnea said.
He said such a goal would require “persistence, a cool head, and commitment to the mission.”
“This mission must remain as our top priority,” he added.
By suspending talks with Washington over Israel's campaign in Lebanon, Tehran has raised the stakes of postwar diplomacy and posed a critical question: is it successfully increasing its leverage, or overplaying its hand?
President Donald Trump announced Monday that Israel and Hezbollah had agreed to halt attacks following a flurry of calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intermediaries linked to the Iranian-backed group.
Hours earlier, however, Iran suspended talks with Washington, citing Israel's military operations in Lebanon and threatening to open new fronts in the conflict.
The diplomatic turmoil comes as Israel carries out its deepest military operations in Lebanon in more than two decades.
Tehran argues the operations violate the broader ceasefire framework established after the US-Iran war, while critics counter that Iran helped create the crisis by insisting Lebanon be included in ceasefire discussions and then backing Hezbollah attacks that prompted Israel's response.
Turning Lebanon into leverage
For some analysts, Iran's actions suggest a regime that believes it emerged from the war with more leverage than many expected.
"I fear that the Iranians are doing what they're doing because they feel that they have the upper hand," Yaakov Katz, an Israeli-American journalist and author of While Israel Slept, told Iran International.
Katz said Tehran may see itself as having weathered the conflict relatively well. The regime survived, its military remains intact despite significant losses, its nuclear program remains unresolved and Washington is still negotiating with it.
From that perspective, Iran may believe it can broaden the scope of diplomacy beyond its nuclear program and force the United States to account for developments in Lebanon.
That is precisely what concerns Katz.
"It's a disaster to connect the two," he said.
If Washington accepts Lebanon as part of the negotiating framework, Katz argues, Tehran could repeatedly use Hezbollah's confrontation with Israel as leverage whenever future diplomatic disputes arise.
The concern comes as Trump balances two competing objectives: preventing a wider regional war while preserving a diplomatic path with Tehran.
On Monday, Iranian-linked media warned that Tehran could expand pressure to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, another vital global shipping route, while tensions remain elevated in the Strait of Hormuz. The threats renewed concerns about global energy supplies and the economic fallout from a broader regional confrontation.
The price of Tehran's red lines
Eric Mandel, founder of the Middle East Political and Information Network, believes the Lebanon crisis, threats to maritime shipping and suspension of talks are all part of a broader Iranian strategy.
"This is a coordinated strategy that they are using," he told Iran International. "The biggest part of it is that they are looking to delay."
Mandel argues Tehran is attempting to stretch out negotiations while increasing economic and geopolitical pressure on Washington.
The goal, he says, is to test whether the Trump administration is willing to sustain a prolonged confrontation or whether concerns over oil prices, shipping disruptions and economic instability will eventually force concessions.
He believes Iran benefits from uncertainty.
"I think what Iran wants overall is to create a global recession," Mandel said.
Danny Citrinowicz of Israel's Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Iran branch in Israeli military intelligence sees the situation somewhat differently.
While Katz and Mandel largely view Tehran's behavior through the lens of leverage and strategy, Citrinowicz argues that ideology remains a central factor.
He says Iran does not view Hezbollah, its missile arsenal and its enrichment program as bargaining chips that can simply be traded away. Rather, they are core pillars of the Islamic Republic.
"They cannot sit aside and not retaliate. That is their mentality," Citrinowicz told Iran International.
From Tehran's perspective, he argues, failing to respond to Israeli operations in Lebanon would amount to abandoning a strategic commitment to Hezbollah and undermining principles the regime considers fundamental to its survival.
That distinction may prove critical as Washington weighs its next move.
For Katz, Iran is attempting to exploit Trump's desire for a deal by transforming Lebanon into a bargaining chip. For Mandel, Tehran is deliberately prolonging the crisis to increase pressure on the United States. For Citrinowicz, Iran's actions are driven less by tactical calculations than by ideological red lines it believes it cannot abandon.
What all three agree on is that Lebanon is no longer a side issue. It has become a central test of the fragile diplomacy between Washington and Tehran.
If Trump pressures Israel to halt operations, Tehran may claim it forced Washington's hand. If he does not, Iran appears prepared to use Lebanon, Hormuz and potentially other fronts to argue that the ceasefire framework has already collapsed.
Either way, Tehran appears willing to increase the costs associated with both diplomacy and confrontation as it seeks to shape the next phase of negotiations.
