A hardline Iranian media outlet has accused members of the country's negotiating team of disregarding the Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's objections during talks with the United States, reviving criticism of the diplomacy that led to the Islamabad agreement.
The accusations were published by Raja News, which cited remarks by Mehdi Khannalizadeh, a member of the media team attached to the Iranian delegation during the Islamabad talks.
Khannalizadeh described what he portrayed as a prolonged dispute between the Supreme Leader and senior officials overseeing negotiations with Washington, saying that negotiators repeatedly departed from conditions set for engagement with the United States.
"The Supreme Leader fundamentally opposed the post-Islamabad negotiating process," Khannalizadeh told Raja News.
Dispute over negotiating framework
An initial proposal for talks with the United States was rejected after being submitted to Mojtaba Khamenei following his selection as a new leader, according to Khannalizadeh.
He said a subsequent ten-point framework was eventually developed and became the basis for an initial statement by the Supreme National Security Council. Khannalizadeh said the Supreme Leader added further conditions to the framework, including a prohibition on negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
The United States initially accepted the framework as a basis for discussions, he said, but later declined to negotiate according to those terms once talks began in Islamabad.
Khannalizadeh added that members of the Iranian team nevertheless engaged in discussions touching on nuclear issues. He said this led US negotiators to conclude that Tehran wanted to avoid a return to war and could be pressured into making concessions.
Objections after Islamabad
Khannalizadeh said reports submitted after the Islamabad talks prompted a negative reaction from the Supreme Leader.
According to his account, the Supreme Leader criticized negotiators for discussing nuclear matters and for failing to insist on the conditions previously established for talks.
He also said several members of the Supreme National Security Council later wrote to the Supreme Leader arguing that negotiations could not proceed without addressing the nuclear issue and warning about the potential impact of continued conflict on Iranian infrastructure.
Khannalizadeh said Mojtaba Khamenei rejected those arguments and maintained that negotiations would not prevent attacks on the country's infrastructure.
Path to the agreement
Despite those objections, Khannalizadeh said officials continued exchanging messages with the United States and eventually abandoned the earlier ten-point framework in favor of a new 14-point proposal developed by the foreign ministry.
That process ultimately led to the Islamabad agreement, he added.
Khannalizadeh continued that the agreement remained unanswered for roughly two weeks after being sent for approval. During that period, officials discussed whether the absence of a response should be interpreted as consent, he claimed.
According to his account, the Supreme Leader instead sent a letter containing a series of questions for members of the Supreme National Security Council. Officials later provided written explanations regarding their interpretation of the agreement's provisions before final approval was granted.
Khannalizadeh argued that the subsequent approval did not reflect support for the negotiating process itself, but rather acceptance of commitments made by officials regarding implementation.
Raja News and the hardline camp
Raja News is widely regarded as being close to the hardline conservative camp in Iran, particularly figures associated with the Paydari Front.
The outlet has frequently provided favorable coverage to politicians and clerics linked to that faction, including Saeed Jalili, Morteza Agha-Tehrani, Hamid Rasaee, Amir-Hossein Sabeti and Mahmoud Nabavian who are mostly opposed to talks with the US. Tehran Mayor Alireza Zakani has also been associated with the current at various points.
The messages, sent to Iran International on Thursday, reflect grief, suspicion and political anger after details emerged of the memorandum between Tehran and Washington.
The agreement outlines a halt to the war, a 60-day negotiation period, steps toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz, possible oil waivers and discussions over frozen assets and sanctions relief.
But for many Iranians who responded, the central question was not what the Islamic Republic might receive, or whether Washington would enforce the terms. It was why ordinary Iranians appeared absent from the agreement.
“We gave our fallen, we endured more hunger and poverty, there was war, we moved further away from our dreams, we were hurt, we were killed unjustly, but uranium was the main issue,” one message said. “In these several clauses of the agreement, there was no word about the people of Iran.”
Another message described the memorandum as an agreement signed “over the bodies of Iran’s children,” referring to what the sender said were 42,000 lives lost.
The message reflected a broader anger among several respondents who saw the deal as a bargain made after months of bloodshed and repression.
Some directed their anger at US President Donald Trump, saying they had hoped Washington would side more clearly with the Iranian people. “Trump is a businessman who first sees his own profit and his country’s interests, and it does not matter to him what has happened or what will happen,” one message said.
Another sender wrote: “Tell Trump that your betrayal has remained so deeply in our hearts and minds that if one day America and Europe need the help of the people of Iran, not a single person will come toward you.”
Others focused on Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the lead Iranian negotiator expected to sign the memorandum in Switzerland on Friday. Ghalibaf has defended the document and urged officials to focus on improving the economy, but one message accused him of speaking more about Lebanon than about Iranians.
“Mr. Ghalibaf, in the same speech where you said we should fix people’s economy, you spoke several times more about Lebanon than about the people of Iran, and said the first clause of the agreement is also Lebanon,” the message said.
The 14-point memorandum includes a provision on ending military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, and ensuring Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also includes provisions on the Strait of Hormuz, oil exports, frozen assets, sanctions and Iran’s nuclear program.
US officials have since sought to limit expectations, saying the memorandum does not provide Tehran with automatic access to frozen assets, immediate sanctions relief or direct US funding.
They said any economic benefit would depend on Iranian compliance and progress toward a final deal, particularly on nuclear issues.
Inside Iran, however, the messages show that many are judging the agreement less by its financial mechanisms than by what it signals politically.
Some saw it as proof that the Islamic Republic’s long confrontation with the United States had ended in failure. “We are not fooled by the regime’s propaganda,” one message said. “The current memorandum between Iran and America was a definite defeat for the Islamic Republic’s 47-year policy.”
Another urged patience and unity, framing the deal as part of a longer process of weakening the system. “Be patient, regime change is happening, although at a gentle speed,” the message said. “Just stay united and give each other hope.”
But several messages were more despairing than hopeful. One sender compared the moment to a scene in a war film where a soldier, after fighting through chaos, suddenly stands still in shock and cries.
“That is how we, the people of Iran, feel with the news of the negotiations,” the message said.
Another asked why no country had insisted that Iranians themselves had rights that should be part of any settlement. “Why was there no one anywhere in the world to say that we, the people of Iran, had the right to live?” the message said. “Why should the human rights of all people in the world be respected except those of Iranians?”
