Tehran's familiar battle lines return over deal with US

The parallels now extend beyond the critics themselves: a message attributed to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei on Thursday offered cautious backing for the agreement while signaling reservations about its terms, recalling the balancing act performed by his father during the JCPOA debate.

When then–Foreign Minister Javad Zarif returned to Tehran after the JCPOA was announced in Vienna in July 2015, vigilante groups gathered at the airport, threatening to lynch him on arrival.

Eleven years later, similar militant factions in Tehran and Mashhad have been heard chanting death threats against chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, denouncing them as “traitors” and “mercenaries of the United States.”

The comparison is striking despite the very different nature of the two agreements.

The JCPOA was a comprehensive, multilateral non-proliferation accord negotiated in peacetime. The June 2026 MoU, by contrast, is a rapid bilateral framework designed to halt a destructive war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and create a 60-day window for broader negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.

In 2015, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei ultimately shielded Zarif and his team, praising their “services to the nation and Islam” despite earlier criticism. A decade later, Mojtaba Khamenei appears to be performing a more cautious version of the same role.

In doing so, he echoed a familiar formula: approving diplomacy while distancing himself from its potential costs. He said he had authorized the agreement despite reservations in principle, after receiving assurances that Iran’s rights and the interests of the “Resistance Front” would be protected.

Hardline outlets and figures have recycled much of the same language deployed against the JCPOA, warning of “capitulation,” “retreat” and repeated “betrayals,” while more pragmatic and reformist-leaning voices defend the MoU as a system-approved effort to secure economic relief and end the war.

Notably, some of the loudest opponents of the Islamabad MoU, including ultraconservative MP Mahmoud Nabavian and Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari, played a similar role in 2015.

Ultraconservative factions continue to accuse negotiators of falling into a Western trap. Elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) view provisions requiring a freeze on enrichment levels and the return of IAEA inspectors to damaged facilities as an unacceptable concession.

The parallels are not exact, but the political script has proved remarkably durable. In both periods, opponents of diplomacy have framed engagement with Washington as a threat to national sovereignty and security.

The JCPOA sought to resolve a long-running nuclear dispute through a detailed and legally complex framework. The Islamabad MoU is a temporary political arrangement intended to stop active hostilities and create space for further negotiations.

Yet some critics on both sides have approached it through the same lens that shaped the debate over the JCPOA.

Similar concerns surfaced at the ongoing G7 summit in France, where several European leaders urged President Trump to adopt a tougher stance toward Tehran and ensure that any future agreement contains sufficient safeguards against the potential weaponization of Iran’s nuclear activities.

Trump may feel free to dismiss such concerns, believing European governments have offered limited support for his campaign against Tehran. Ghalibaf, by contrast, is clearly attempting to persuade domestic hardliners to accept the agreement.

Addressing the Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, he declared: “All of us must take over the trench that was held by the battlefield warriors, stand firm, lift the people out from under economic pressures, and build the country with power.”

Mojtaba Khamenei’s statement appeared designed to contain opposition from within the conservative camp. While emphasizing that he had approved the agreement only after receiving specific assurances from Iranian officials, he portrayed the decision as a conditional endorsement rather than a strategic shift, signaling to critics that support for the memorandum should not be mistaken for acceptance of broader concessions to Washington.

By invoking the language of wartime sacrifice while defending a diplomatic agreement, Ghalibaf appeared to be making a familiar argument: that negotiation, however unpopular among hardliners, may sometimes be necessary to preserve the very system they seek to defend.

State-controlled media initially struck an upbeat tone, highlighting the positive reaction in Iran’s foreign-exchange and gold markets. It also amplified reports about the repatriation of frozen assets and a $300 billion reconstruction package.

But the market rally was short-lived, and both stories about incoming cash were quickly dismissed as fake news and publicly refuted by Trump at the G7 summit in France.

Across Tehran’s media on Tuesday morning, coverage reflected a mix of cautious optimism and skepticism.

The debate is unfolding even as the memorandum itself remains unpublished and some of its key provisions unclear.

The agreement is expected to be formally signed on Friday, but it faces critics in both Tehran and Washington, where opponents have questioned everything from sanctions relief to the handling of Iran’s nuclear program.

The divide was especially clear in two interviews: one with economist Heydar Mostakhdemin-Hosseini in Jahan-e Sanat newspaper, and another with macroeconomist Hadi Haghshenas on the Khabar Online website.

Mostakhdemin-Hosseini’s core message was a warning: while a political breakthrough may calm market psychology and reduce short-term inflationary expectations, it will not resolve Iran’s entrenched structural problems, including chronic budget deficits, excessive money creation and a dysfunctional banking system.

He stressed that political calm can temporarily stabilize markets by reducing panic buying and war-related anxiety, but it cannot cure long-term inflation.

On the dangers of crisis financing, he said: “The greatest danger in wartime conditions is financing the costs of war through printing money… Almost all countries that experienced hyperinflation during periods of conflict repeated this exact mistake.”

He also warned that “capital flees from instability,” arguing that legal stability, respect for property rights, anti-corruption measures and reduced political risk must be top priorities.

“In times of economic crisis, the public’s psychological trust in the government’s economic stewardship is a far more powerful tool for market stabilization than physical gold or foreign currency reserves,” he added.

Offering a starkly different assessment, Haghshenas presented an optimistic outlook for Iran’s economy following what he described as a two-stage agreement with the United States.

He predicted that the post-war period could mirror the economic rebounds seen after the 1988 ceasefire with Iraq under UN Resolution 598 and the 2015 nuclear deal, potentially delivering single-digit inflation and double-digit growth.

He argued that a final deal could reduce inflation by stabilizing the foreign-exchange market and unlocking frozen assets to absorb excess liquidity.

Psychological relief and a decline in inflation would emerge during the current Iranian year ending in March 2027, he said, while more substantial macroeconomic gains, including double-digit growth, would likely materialize in the following year ending in March 2028.

“When blocked resources enter the economy, they will collect a portion of the existing liquidity,” he added. “Therefore, the potential agreement will lead to a reduction in the inflation rate from two directions.”

Whether that optimism proves justified remains uncertain. Even if a broader agreement is reached, many of the structural problems identified by Mostakhdemin-Hosseini—including fiscal imbalances, monetary expansion and weak investor confidence—would remain unresolved.

As Iran twice came from behind to draw 2-2 at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, fans cheered different goals for different reasons. Some celebrated every Iranian attack. Others openly rooted against a team they view as inseparable from the Islamic Republic.

The divided reactions reflected a question that has become increasingly fraught since January 8-9, 2026, when the Islamic Republic launched a nationwide crackdown on anti-regime protesters that killed tens of thousands of unarmed civilians: can one support Team Melli without supporting the state it represents?

The trauma of those events continues to reverberate far beyond Iran's borders.

At SoFi Stadium, one fan wore a custom jersey marked "8-9," a reference instantly recognizable to many Iranians as the dates of the deadliest two nights in Iran's modern history.

"I felt proud to be Iranian, but with a mixed bag of emotions, carrying the weight of everything that the regime has done and what the people have suffered," actress and activist Nazanin Nour told Iran International.

Nour said she ultimately decided to attend the game despite her conflicted feelings because the regime has taken so much from Iranians worldwide, and she did not want it to deprive her of the joy of the sport as well.

"I think everybody's feelings are informed by their pain and trauma and everything that we've witnessed over the last not just few months but 47 years," she said. "It makes sense that everybody feels like this is a really weird time but still a time to be proud of who we are and where we come from."

100%

A team added

Since the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests, players have faced scrutiny over whether they sing the national anthem, meet state officials or publicly support protesters.

Supporters and critics alike increasingly view the national team through a political lens because it officially represents the Islamic Republic.

While some players and football federation officials have shown alignment with the state, others have faced pressure for expressing solidarity with anti-government protests or refusing to sing the national anthem.

Former Iranian national team goalkeeper and coach Mohammad Rashid Mazaheri has been held by Iranian authorities since late February 2026 after criticizing the leader in an Instagram post.

For many Iranians, his case is another reminder of how even prominent athletes can face severe repercussions—even death—for expressing dissent.

"We're a world away from past World Cups, when, regardless of politics, Iranians inside the country and across the diaspora were united behind Team Melli," said Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute.

That unity was perhaps best illustrated in 1998, when Iran's victory over the United States sparked celebrations from Tehran to Los Angeles.

Pride and protest

Before kickoff, hundreds of protesters gathered outside SoFi Stadium waving anti-government signs and the pre-revolution Lion and Sun flag in a city home to one of the world's largest Iranian diasporas.

Despite FIFA's ban on the Lion and Sun flag, videos circulating online showed numerous fans displaying it inside the stadium.

Among those in attendance was activist Mersedeh Shahinkar, who was blinded in one eye after being shot directly in the eye by security forces during the 2022 protests. Shahinkar, who later fled Iran and now lives in the United States, arrived carrying a Lion and Sun flag.

Shahinkar confronted supporters of the Islamic Republic both inside and outside the stadium, where tensions at times spilled into verbal confrontations and some spectators called fans carrying Iran’s current flag "terrorists."

At times, Shahinkar pointed to the empty eye socket left after she was shot during the 2022 protests, a reminder of the price many Iranians have paid in opposing the state.

100%

Iranian-American news anchor Shally Zomorodi later posted a video to Instagram with tears in her eyes, saying two men confronted her husband over his Lion and Sun logo.

"The hardest part of tonight," she wrote. "Two Iranian men saw my husband with the Lion Sun logo on his shirt and started cursing at him and tried to start a fight with Bruce."

But the atmosphere was not uniformly hostile, said Nour, who witnessed fans carrying Lion and Sun flags sitting near supporters displaying Iran’s official flag.

"I just saw people enjoying a game and being respectful of each other's opinions," she said.

Inside the stadium, boos rang out during the national anthem while many fans appeared to cheer individual players rather than the state they represent.

After the match, Iranian goalscorer Ramin Rezaeian pushed back when asked by a US journalist about fans whistling and booing during the national anthem.

"That's none of your business," he said. "What happens between Iranians is our own matter, and we will resolve it ourselves."

The same arguments played out far from California.

In North Vancouver, home to a large Iranian Canadian community, some crowds—even those displaying Iran's pre-revolutionary flag—erupted in cheers when Iran scored against New Zealand.

A sign of just how complicated the issue can be.

"We're here for the players only," Zina Monjazeb of Los Angeles told Reuters. "We're not here supporting the regime, at all."

Others rejected that distinction entirely.

"We believe that this is not the Iranian team. This is the Islamic regime," Naderi Alizadeh, 39, of San Diego, told Reuters.

In one scene captured on social media, Iranian player Mehdi Taremi is seen handing his shirt to a fan displaying the Lion and Sun flag.

For some Iranians, Team Melli remains a source of national pride distinct from the state it represents. For others, the jersey has become inseparable from the government behind it.

Ninety minutes of football did not resolve the argument. But for one night, it revealed just how deeply it now runs.

The MoU is expected to be formally signed on Friday and followed by 60 days of talks aimed at reaching a final deal, leaving many Iranians torn between relief over the end of fighting, hope for sanctions relief, anger over years of delay, and distrust of both Tehran and Washington.

Regime supporters say Iran forced concessions

Some government supporters argued that Iran emerged from the conflict without losing territory and succeeded in compelling its adversaries to accept its demands through resistance.

A review of public comments posted in response to a Khabar Online survey on reactions to the end of the war showed both pride and anger among users.

One user wrote that they were “very happy” about the end of the war while also feeling “a sense of pride.”

That view was quickly challenged by others. Responding to the comment, another user wrote: “Exactly what is there to be proud of? The destruction of military and technical infrastructure? Crushing inflation that is breaking people's backs? Or the fact that countries in the region are no longer willing to maintain relations with Iran? What pride are you talking about?”

Another user was even more critical, writing: “They struck our leader and senior officials. Several layers of leadership were hit from top to bottom. Our skies had become a thoroughfare for Israel and the United States. I am not proud of this situation.”

Relief mixed with anxiety

Many users said they welcomed the end of the fighting but remained pessimistic about the future or fearful that war could erupt again.

Responding to Khabar Online, one user wrote: “I am happy the war is over, but I do not have an encouraging outlook for the future.”

The user added that prospects would remain bleak as long as some groups could freely gather in the streets under the protection of security forces and express their views, while criticism of government policies by others was treated as opposition to the entire political system and met with “insults, reprimands, prison, and torture.”

Another user described their feelings as “a measure of calm accompanied by anxiety about another war in the future.”

Some users expressed hopes that a final agreement and the lifting of sanctions could improve living conditions.

Dorna Afshinfar wrote on X: “If a final agreement is reached and sanctions are lifted, what changes do you expect to see? I expect dramatic falls in the prices of essential goods such as rice, meat, chicken, dairy products, and fruit; sharp declines in housing, dollar, and gold prices; medicines and healthcare becoming much cheaper; the arrival of new airplanes, buses, and ships; and lower ticket prices for all of them.”

Critics say the deal came too late

A recurring theme among users was criticism of the government for resisting negotiations with Washington for years before eventually returning to the negotiating table after a costly conflict.

One user named Mojtaba wrote on X: “After all this war and misery, we are back to nuclear negotiations again. My God, what sin did we commit that negotiations never leave us Iranians alone?”

He added: “If you were going to make all these concessions, you should have accepted them from the beginning and not let people be crushed under the burden of inflation.”

The same user accused officials of ruining lives through years of insistence on the nuclear issue, writing: “You destroyed people's lives through all these years of absurd insistence on nuclear energy. Now you have accepted it. You should have made a rational decision from the start. I feel bitter that my past, present, and lost youth have been wasted.”

Another user wrote: “What do we feel? We feel inflation, helplessness, and a lost future. Why did you choose this path from the beginning, create all this damage, and then return to where you started? Why all these costs and wasted opportunities?”

Opposition lashes out at Trump

Many opponents of the Islamic Republic reacted angrily to Washington's decision to reach an agreement with Tehran, saying they felt abandoned by President Donald Trump and his administration.

One user wrote on X: “Shame on Trump for making a deal with the killers of 50,000 martyrs.”

Another user, referring to reports that Trump prevented Israel from targeting Ali Khamenei during the 12-day war in 2025, said: “This agreement is a betrayal of the Iranian people. They told us not to come out into the streets until the right time arrived, but it never came. Why did they not allow Khamenei to be targeted during the 12-day war? There are many other questions that I know will never be answered. They played with our blood.”

Yet another user wrote: “Forty thousand martyrs are the light that guides us, and avenging them remains our goal. Whether America wants it or not, whether it makes a deal or not, what matters is what the people of Iran want.”

Others insisted that the opposition movement would continue regardless of diplomatic developments.

“One way or another, they will reach an agreement and remain in power, but we will still be here. We will confront them in the streets. We swear by the blood of the slain that we will not go back,” one user wrote on X.

Another added: “Despite this agreement, I have never been more certain that this regime will fall. We have a king, and we will stand by our king and our flag until the end. We will reclaim Iran ourselves.”

Hardliners reject negotiations

Hardline government supporters who oppose any negotiations with the United States and believe the conflict should continue until the defeat of the United States and Israel also expressed anger at the agreement.

In recent days, hardline demonstrators have chanted slogans such as “Death to the compromisers,” “What happened to the blood of the martyred Leader?” and “We do not accept the agreement.” They have also launched a campaign under the slogan “We Do Not Accept” in an effort to halt the deal.

Videos and posts circulating on social media appeared to show security forces trying to prevent some of these gatherings and, in some cases, using force against demonstrators in Tehran and Mashhad. Iran International could not independently verify the footage or the circumstances.

Among the posts shared on X was one by Mohammad-Taher Rahimi, who wrote: “May the hand be cut off of anyone who shakes hands with the killers of the martyred Imam and poses for a commemorative photograph with them.”

A hardline user named Mehrdad wrote: “After the enemy gains access to uranium, we will enter a difficult existential war. Do not forget that Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian paved the way for this conflict.”

Another user, Hessam Mahmoudi, argued that Iran's uranium stockpile was a key deterrent. “The enemy needed to destroy missile cities with tactical nuclear bombs to force Iran's surrender. The only thing stopping them was uranium. If we give up our uranium stockpile or destroy it, next time they will do something unprecedented to us.”

A user posting under the name Bi Behnam on X wrote: “Let me be very clear. Trump's primary and ultimate goal in accepting this agreement is to remove Iran's uranium reserves. After that, the rest of the path will not be difficult for him. The moment the reserves are handed over or diluted, they will come down on Iran in a way that will become a lesson for history.”

Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not yet commented on the announcement. President Masoud Pezeshkian, however, welcomed the development in a post on X, saying that if all provisions of the memorandum are implemented correctly, it could become "a source of pride for the country."

Pezeshkian said that an overwhelming majority of members of Iran's Supreme National Security Council had approved the text so that "America's genuine commitment to respecting the rights of the Iranian nation could be tested in practice."

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also served as Iran's chief negotiator, struck a triumphant tone. In a message posted on X, he wrote that despite efforts by those who sought "to destroy the Iranian nation and force the country into submission, Iran had taken a major step toward final victory."

He added: "They wanted to, but they could not."

Judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei also praised the outcome, saying the Islamic Republic had demonstrated "dignified and revolutionary diplomacy."

The announcement had an immediate impact on Iran's financial markets. The value of the US dollar and other foreign currencies, as well as digital assets such as Tether and gold prices, dropped following the news. Tehran's stock market also reacted positively when trading resumed on Monday.

Lawmakers split over agreement

Some members of parliament welcomed the reported memorandum.

Rouhollah Lak-Aliabadi told the conservative Tabnak news website that one of the memorandum's positive aspects was that “contrary to Washington's initial demands, there is no discussion of limiting the country's missile capabilities." He claimed that even American officials now speak of continued uranium enrichment "within specified frameworks."

"This shows that the Islamic Republic's military strength has been able to influence the course of negotiations," he said.

Hossein Samsami, a member of parliament affiliated with the hardline Paydari Front, argued that nuclear and regional negotiations are not permissible and that any future talks should serve only to buy time so that the country's deterrence capabilities can be strengthened.

In a post on X, he wrote that he follows the Supreme Leader's directives, but that his expert assessment differs.

This position was criticized by Lak-Aliabadi, who told Tabnak: "For someone to declare that even if the Leader supports a decision, he will still oppose it, is fundamentally unacceptable."

Hardline lawmaker Amirhossein Sabeti described the agreement as "hasty and weak," claiming it violated the Supreme Leader's red lines and reflected a "miscalculation" by officials.

According to Sabeti, "This agreement reflects the capabilities and understanding of the country's senior officials under current circumstances, not the satisfaction of the Supreme Leader." He further argued that the deal "will neither bring economic relief nor guarantee the country's security."

Mahmoud Nabavian, another hardline parliamentarian associated with the Paydari Front, called on authorities to provide the public with a detailed report on implementation of the memorandum, including provisions concerning the lifting of maritime restrictions, oil and petrochemical exports, banking and insurance services, and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

The hardline Raja News website criticized what it called an agreement with "the killer of the Leader," referring to US President Donald Trump, and questioned the lack of publicly available details regarding Iran's commitments under the memorandum.

Controversies over timing

Some hardliners also objected to the timing of the announcement. Because the news broke after midnight in Iran, while it was still June 14 in Washington — Trump's birthday — critics portrayed it as a symbolic gift to the US president.

Conservative journalist Parisa Nasr wrote: "Couldn't they have waited a few more hours until June 14 had passed in Washington before trumpeting the Iran-US peace agreement? Was giving a birthday gift to the killer of the martyred Leader also one of the unwritten conditions of the deal?"

Ahmad Qadiri, a hardline activist and researcher of international law, argued that Iran had obtained only promises while "what Trump has gained immediately is Iran's loss of credibility among the resistance front, lower oil prices, and having the agreement announced on his birthday."

Reformists and moderates welcome move

Several prominent reformist and centrist figures endorsed the reported agreement.

Former president Mohammad Khatami and former foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif, who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear agreement, both expressed support. In a statement, Khatami described acceptance of the memorandum as "a major and courageous step" and said that it was something "to be genuinely pleased about."

Reformist journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi offered a more measured assessment. Writing on his Telegram channel, he argued that the memorandum represented neither the surrender of one side nor the complete victory of the other.

"It is, like every other phenomenon, the ultimate result of the balance of power between the parties," he wrote, warning that absolutist interpretations favoring either side could complicate future negotiations aimed at reaching a final agreement.

The news website Rouydad24 described the current arrangement as "a major geopolitical ceasefire and a preliminary non-proliferation agreement" rather than a lasting peace settlement.

"Iranian diplomacy must now move from the phase of containing war to consolidating achievements and achieving the durable removal of sanctions — a marathon in which wisdom, domestic cohesion and avoiding unnecessary extremism are the first conditions for success," the report said.

In a commentary for Asr-e Iran, journalist Reza Ghibishavi argued that the end of the conflict could mark a historic turning point for the country.

"From Monday morning, with the official end of the war and the end of abnormal conditions, Iran enters a new era," he wrote. "A new Iran with a new leader, new circumstances, new experiences, a new society, a new region, a new agreement, a new America, and a new world. None of them will return to the past."