According to the message, Mojtaba Khamenei had "a different view in principle" regarding the memorandum but approved it after receiving assurances from the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and its chairman, President Masoud Pezeshkian, that Iran’s rights and the interests of the "Axis of Resistance" would be safeguarded.
The statement quickly produced competing narratives. Supporters of the government presented it as a roadmap for the next phase of diplomacy, while critics argued it showed the leader’s preferred approach had been sidelined during negotiations.
Pezeshkian said the message had "clarified the responsibility of all influential components in the upcoming negotiation process."
Parliament Speaker and lead negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said it strengthened Tehran’s hand in holding Washington to its commitments under the memorandum.
Leader ‘ignored’
Hardline media outlets and political figures offered a starkly different reading, arguing that the message showed the leader’s views had not been fully reflected in the negotiation process.
The conservative website Raja News described Pezeshkian’s response as disrespectful, writing: "Mr. Pezeshkian, your duty is obedience and compliance, not merely consideration."
The outlet also criticized Ghalibaf’s comments, arguing that he appeared to treat the leader’s conditions as negotiating leverage rather than binding red lines.
"It seems he has forgotten that the leader’s red lines are not bargaining tools in negotiations but mandatory boundaries by which his future performance will be judged," the website wrote.
Mohsen Maghsoudi, writing for Fars News Agency, argued that opponents of negotiations had effectively been vindicated because their position had been aligned with that of the leader.
He claimed that "the compromise camp" had made decisions on behalf of both society and officials and that "the principled view of the Guardian Jurist was not followed."
Kian Abdollahi, editor-in-chief of IRGC-linked Tasnim News Agency, wrote that if officials advanced the memorandum despite knowing the leader held a different view, they bore responsibility for the consequences.
Competing narratives
Analysts offered sharply different interpretations of the political significance of the message.
Political analyst Ruhollah Rahimpour argued that Khamenei was seeking to reassure hardliners that he had not abandoned his previous positions and had accepted the agreement only because of state interests and the guarantees he received.
"But this manner of expression unintentionally reveals a reality," he wrote.
"The agreement is so costly and controversial for part of the power structure that the leader of the Islamic Republic felt compelled to clear himself of blame before defending it."
Political analyst Shahir Shahid Saless argued that the statement implicitly acknowledged direct negotiations with Washington, noting that the reference to "future face-to-face talks" amounted to recognition of direct engagement with the United States.
Historian and commentator Abdollah Shahbazi argued that the message would increase pressure on Ghalibaf, Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi from opponents of the memorandum.
He also compared the statement to former leader Ali Khamenei’s habit of maintaining distance from controversial decisions while allowing them to proceed.
The 'poisoned chalice'
The debate quickly spread to social media, where some users compared the statement to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s acceptance of the ceasefire that ended the Iran-Iraq War.
But while Khomeini openly accepted responsibility for the decision, famously describing it as "drinking a chalice of poison," critics argued Mojtaba Khamenei’s message emphasized his reservations before endorsing the agreement.
Moderate commentators rejected suggestions that the leader was attempting to distance himself from the memorandum.
Ahmad Zeidabadi argued that relations between the president and the leader remained "close and based on mutual trust."
He said the emphasis on the role of the president and the SNSC amounted to an expression of confidence in Pezeshkian and a reminder of the presidency’s importance as the second-highest office in the political system.
Seraj Mirdamadi similarly argued that the statement reflected trust in an elected official rather than an attempt to shift responsibility, describing it as "democratic and encouraging."
The dispute is ultimately about more than the wording of a single statement. It reflects an emerging struggle over ownership of the memorandum itself.
With talks set to enter a new phase, that battle over credit and blame may prove almost as consequential as the negotiations themselves.
