US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon,” adding that US military strength has left Tehran without a navy or air force and that the Middle East is heading toward peace.
“Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Thanks to our military might, they have no navy, no air force, and for the first time, we are going to have peace in the Middle East," Trump said in remarks at the National Mall.
US Representative Brad Schneider praised progress in Lebanon-Israel talks in Washington while warning against Iranian influence over the negotiations and urging they be kept separate from broader talks involving Tehran.
"The people of Lebanon and Israel deserve to live safely and securely in peace. I commend the two governments for working to make progress during the negotiations here in Washington. Iran should not be allowed to exert control over the negotiations nor exercise a veto over the will of the Lebanese government and its people," Schneider posted on X.
"There is a window to move these negotiations forward, but only if they are kept separate from negotiations with Iran. The IRGC does not care about the Lebanese people and must not be permitted to undermine crucial progress toward peace and prosperity for both sides of the border," he added.
President Masoud Pezeshkian's unusually blunt remarks about Iran's economic crisis have intensified infighting over Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's position on the US-Iran agreement.
The dispute centers on a written message attributed to Khamenei outlining his position on the Memorandum of Understanding.
In the message, Khamenei wrote: "In principle, I had a different view, but because of the commitment that the President, as head of the Supreme National Security Council, gave on behalf of himself and the council members regarding safeguarding the rights of the Iranian nation and the Resistance Front, and because they explicitly accepted responsibility for it, I authorized it."
Hardliners, including parliamentarian Hamid Rasaei and former MP Kamran Ghazanfari, accused Pezeshkian, parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and their allies of effectively staging a "coup" against the Supreme Leader.
'A devastated economy'
The dispute spilled into public view when attendees at an official event shouted that Pezeshkian's government should adhere to the "principles" referenced by Khamenei.
"The principle is justice. The principle is serving the people. The principle is honesty," Pezeshkian responded.
"For 40 to 50 days, we could not export a single barrel of oil from the Persian Gulf," he said. "They have devastated our economy, and many young people have become unemployed. Our young people have no hope for the future. We have to pay benefits to the unemployed and we cannot collect taxes. You tell me, where is the money supposed to come from?"
Pezeshkian also revealed that the government had diverted $20 million in oil-export revenues that would normally have gone into the state budget to the IRGC Aerospace Force to procure military equipment.
"If we had not supported the IRGC, our armed forces would not have been able to fight."
He added that he was withholding further details in the interest of national unity, saying he had much more to say but preferred not to disclose it.
Institutional backing
Pezeshkian's remarks also suggested growing confidence that key power centers continue to back the agreement despite mounting criticism from hardliners.
According to the president, the memorandum was approved by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) with the backing of the country's most senior commanders from both the regular army and the Revolutionary Guards.
Further evidence emerged on Tuesday when Sobh-e Sadegh, the weekly publication of the IRGC's political office, reported that Saeed Jalili—an SNSC member and a longstanding opponent of talks with Washington—had sought to clarify the leader's position.
According to the report, Jalili said Khamenei's statement was not opposition to negotiations but to Tehran's negotiating approach and certain provisions of the memorandum. He reportedly also said those who voted for the agreement in the council could not be accused of acting against the leadership.
His remarks echoed those of IRGC political chief Yadollah Javani, who said on Monday that the negotiations had been conducted with Khamenei's permission and according to the conditions he had set.
"The interpretation by some that the phrase 'in principle' signifies opposition to negotiations with the United States is incorrect," Javani said.
Competing readings
Iranian newspapers have offered sharply different interpretations of the controversy.
The government newspaper Iran argued that the Supreme Leader's message emphasized "responsibility, commitment, effort, and concern" on the part of government officials.
"The Leader's message was about the government's responsibility," it wrote, "but in part of the political sphere it became a tool for intensifying attacks on the government."
The conservative Khorasan newspaper argued that the message sought to balance three principles: maintaining the Islamic Republic's stance toward US hostility, conditionally accepting the outcome of the official decision-making process and demanding accountability from those implementing the memorandum.
It added that, in political and jurisprudential reasoning, the phrase "in principle" refers to a general rule that can admit exceptions under special circumstances.
Not all conservative voices defended the government. In an editorial titled Mr. President, the Enemy Can Hear You Too, the conservative website Alef criticized Pezeshkian for repeatedly discussing Iran's economic difficulties in public.
One reader commented: "Saying that not even a single barrel of oil was exported because of the US blockade, or that all military officials supported the memorandum, does not send a good message to the enemy."
Debate spills onto social media
Social media reflected the same divide. Supporters praised Pezeshkian's candor, while critics renewed accusations that he was attempting to pressure the Supreme Leader into accepting the agreement.
One supporter wrote: "Pezeshkian is completely right. You cannot run a country without money. We have to face reality."
A critic responded on X: "Standing against the Leader and then blaming everything on the Leader and the system is not called courage."
The dispute increasingly appears to be less about the memorandum itself than about who gets to define Khamenei's position. As negotiations with Washington move forward, competing factions are seeking to claim the leader's authority either to legitimize the agreement or to constrain those implementing it.
Iran’s Minister of Culture Abbas Salehi said on Wednesday US President Donald Trump is continuing the same behavior in the current diplomatic phase as during the recent conflict and urged caution against amplifying his messaging.
"Trump became a boy who cried wolf during the war, with contradictory claims, false information, and repeated exaggerations of victory. Now, in the period of negotiations, he is doing the same thing, and we must be careful not to align with his narrative-building and not give him credibility inside the country," Salehi posted on X.
A letter published on Wednesday by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) urged First Lady Melania Trump to draw attention to human rights abuses in Iran, particularly against women, alongside ongoing US focus on nuclear talks and energy policy.
"Iran’s current Islamic revolutionaries are not less radicalized than their predecessors. They are not interested in turning over a new leaf, nor are they looking to help their country," FDD founder Clifford May wrote in letter.
"They are Khomeinists, which means they are eager to kill - and die - to reestablish Islamic supremacy far and wide," he added. "All I am asking is that you bring your clear-eyed and worldly perspective to the people around you — as loudly as possible."
Senator Lindsey Graham said on Wednesday that the Senate should, “to the extent possible,” re-vote a War Powers resolution related to Iran and defeat it, arguing the earlier vote could embolden Iran during ongoing negotiations.
"I believe it is imperative that to the extent possible the Senate re-vote the Iran War Powers resolution – and defeat it. The president’s concern about Iran being emboldened by this vote in the middle of negotiations to end this war is not unwarranted. Frankly, it’s just common sense. What’s ironic is that votes like this have the unintended consequence of extending the conflict," Graham posted on X. "If possible, we should re-vote."