The latest exchange of strikes has allowed opponents of the Tehran-Washington memorandum of understanding (MoU) to argue that even a limited agreement cannot prevent conflict or deliver the economic relief promised to ordinary Iranians.
A majority of members of the Assembly of Experts seized on the renewed tensions over the weekend by issuing an unusually political statement questioning key elements of the MoU.
They criticized the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, insisted Iran's nuclear rights must remain outside negotiations and called for those responsible for the killing of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—including US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—to be punished, saying anyone with access to them had a religious duty to kill them.
The statement was followed by a commentary in the hardline newspaper Kayhan, whose editor Hossein Shariatmadari echoed calls for retaliation against Trump.
The intervention marked one of the clearest signs yet that recent military exchanges have emboldened factions that have long opposed negotiations with Washington.
At the same time, hardliners renewed attacks on President Massoud Pezeshkian and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, arguing that diplomacy has failed to produce either a durable ceasefire or meaningful economic relief.
Throughout the past month, outlets such as Kayhan and Raja News, along with ultrahardline factions including the Paydari Party, have steadily intensified their criticism of the 60-day framework agreement.
Kayhan has described the MoU as "diplomatic capitulation under Western pressure," while Raja News has portrayed it as a retreat from Iran's red lines without securing comprehensive sanctions relief.
By linking economic hardship directly to continuing military pressure, these groups have shifted the domestic debate from how best to implement the agreement to whether negotiations with an adversary still engaged in military action can produce any meaningful benefit.
From their perspective, each exchange of strikes reinforces the argument that Washington cannot be trusted and that diplomacy merely gives the United States and Israel time to regroup.
Renewed maritime incidents and the slow pace of sanctions relief have become central to that narrative.
Hardline lawmakers including Kamran Ghazanfari and Mahmoud Nabavian have likewise criticized provisions allowing the resumption of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that Iran has reopened one of its most important strategic levers without securing sufficient concessions in return.
More pragmatic conservatives and state-aligned outlets, including the Ghalibaf-affiliated Khorasan newspaper, have found themselves defending the agreement as a state-approved tactical pause rather than a final settlement—an indication that the political debate is increasingly being fought on hardliners' terms.
The latest military exchanges have not fundamentally altered the balance of power inside the Islamic Republic, but they have strengthened the political position of those who opposed negotiations from the outset.
Whether that advantage proves temporary or enduring will depend largely on whether the ceasefire holds and whether the negotiations begin producing tangible results.
For the government, the immediate challenge extends beyond managing relations with Washington. It must also persuade skeptical political and clerical constituencies that diplomacy can still improve Iran's security and economic position.
Failure to do so could further strengthen arguments that negotiations have produced neither stability nor prosperity, narrowing the political space available to diplomats such as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and others advocating continued engagement with the United States.
Whether the current ceasefire ultimately survives may prove less significant than what the latest escalation has already changed inside Iran's domestic debate. Each renewed exchange of fire gives opponents of diplomacy another opportunity to argue that negotiations cannot deliver either security or economic relief.
Unless the ceasefire becomes durable and visible economic benefits begin to emerge, the balance of political momentum is likely to continue shifting toward those advocating a more confrontational course.
