Iran International
Iranian hardliners have accused the country's negotiators of compromising Tehran’s authority over the Strait of Hormuz, claiming a recent understanding with the United States has pushed international shipping toward what they call a US-backed Omani route.
Opponents of the Iran-US understanding have launched a fierce campaign against Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, described as the agreement's chief negotiator, and President Masoud Pezeshkian, accusing them of surrendering Iran's authority over the Strait of Hormuz, thereby allowing the establishment of an Oman-American shipping corridor.
The criticism intensified after a televised interview with Ghalibaf aired on Tuesday, during which he appeared to reject calls by hardliners to close the strategic waterway.
"We must not turn the Strait against itself. The Strait is valuable only if traffic through it increases day by day, not decreases," he said.
His remarks were interpreted by conservative critics as a signal that Tehran has accepted Washington’s preferred arrangements governing maritime traffic through the Strait.
Focus shifts to Omani route
The controversy was fueled by satellite-based vessel tracking videos recently published by Kpler, which appeared to show that many non-Iranian commercial vessels have recently transited the Omani side of the Strait apparently accompanied by US naval vessels, while only a limited number of Iranian vessels were using the Iranian side. Hardliners argue that this reflects a de facto shift away from Iran's jurisdiction.
Ehsan Hosseini, editor-in-chief of the conservative economic website Khat-e Energy, claimed in a video posted online that both "the naval blockade and the Omani corridor are products of negotiations with the United States."
"At this very moment, groups of ships are passing through this corridor under US military escort. Your grave mistake is unforgivable."
In a separate social media post, Hosseini wrote that Iran's diplomats had "not only failed to collect any fees, but also created the conditions for establishing an Omani corridor through the Strait." He questioned whether Iran lacked the military capability to prevent the arrangement or whether "someone has tied the hands of the armed forces."
Military issues warning
Amid the growing debate, the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters issued a strongly worded statement on Thursday amid hardliner pressure, without explicitly referring to the alleged Omani corridor.
The military command said all commercial and oil tankers were required to navigate through routes designated by Iran and warned that any vessel departing from those routes or disregarding “Iranian navigation protocols” in the Strait would face "an immediate and decisive response by the armed forces," placing the security of non-compliant ships at risk.
Several Friday prayer leaders also addressed the issue.
Hassan Ameli, Friday prayer leader of Ardabil, claimed the United States had violated the agreement by establishing "a new waterway alongside Oman."
Mohammad-Nabi Mousavifard, the Friday prayer leader of Ahvaz, issued an even stronger warning.
"If any ship passes through this waterway without permission and without observing the laws of the Islamic Republic, it will be sunk in the depths of the Persian Gulf."
Dispute over Strait management fees
According to The Wall Street Journal, US officials proposed during talks in Doha earlier this week that Iran abandon its demand to collect transit charges from ships crossing the Strait in exchange for access to frozen Iranian assets abroad. Tehran reportedly continues to insist on charging vessels for passage.
Hardliners argue that revenue generated from shipping fees could rival Iran's oil income.
They also accuse Ghalibaf of keeping parliament inactive to allow the agreement with Washington to proceed without interference from lawmakers affiliated with the ultra-hardliner Paydari (Steadfastness) Party, who are reportedly preparing draft legislation on a new legal framework for administering the Strait.
Iranian officials have maintained that the payments would be "management fees" rather than transit tolls, which could raise legal objections under international maritime law.
In his interview, Ghalibaf said ships would be allowed to pass without charge for only 60 days under the signed understanding, although he did not specify the type or amount of the fees that would eventually be imposed.
Social media backlash
Hardliner social media users also directed their criticism at Ghalibaf and the Pezeshkian administration.
One X user, Reza Valizadeh, referred to the Kpler tracking footage and wrote: “This is the doing of Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian. Nobody is passing through the Iranian section of the Strait of Hormuz."
Another user, Mohammad-Hossein Chavoshi, claimed that "part of the Strait of Hormuz has effectively slipped out of Iran's control" because international vessels were using a route designated by Oman.
He argued that the sovereign rights over the Strait emphasized by Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had effectively been abandoned and warned that "no one knows what will happen in two months if this continues."
Vice President Mohammad-Jafar Ghaempanah came under fierce criticism from ultra-hardliners after saying Khamenei’s recent message on the memorandum showed respect for the Islamic Republic’s institutional decision-making process, not opposition to the agreement.
The dispute follows the publication of a written message attributed to Khamenei, in which he said he had “a different view in principle” about the memorandum but approved it after receiving assurances from the Supreme National Security Council and its chairman, Pezeshkian, that Iran’s national interests and those of the so-called Axis of Resistance would be protected.
That phrase has become the center of an increasingly bitter dispute.
Ultra-hardliners argue that Khamenei’s statement proves he had serious reservations about the agreement and accepted it only under pressure.
Some conservative figures and media outlets, including the hardline daily Kayhan, have warned that portraying the Supreme Leader as being at odds with the SNSC risks deepening political polarization.
A message read two ways
According to Ghaempanah, Khamenei had instructed that the memorandum be discussed at an SNSC meeting attended by senior military commanders, and had said the agreement should be accepted if three-quarters of members approved it.
“If every opinion expressed by the Leader were implemented without question, there would be no need for institutions such as parliament or the SNSC. The Leader expresses his views, and those views are examined by experts,” he added.
Ghaempanah said all but one member voted in favor of signing the memorandum, after which Khamenei authorized it while warning that “Iran must not retreat in the face of excessive American demands.”
He also said Khamenei’s reported remark that he had “a different view in principle” did not mean opposition to the memorandum, but instead strengthened Iran’s bargaining position with the United States.
Authority at the center of backlash
Ultra-hardliners interpreted Ghaempanah’s remarks as diminishing the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, or Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, arguing that he had implied the Supreme Leader’s view could be subordinated to decisions taken by the SNSC.
Reza Narimani, a prominent eulogist or maddah (religious singer) associated with the ultra-hardline camp, accused Ghaempanah of misunderstanding the concept of Velayat-e Faqih.
Writing on the hardline Raja News website, Narimani said Ghaempanah should not hold office if he believed “not everything the Leader says is binding,” arguing that practical commitment to the Leader’s directives is a prerequisite for serving in the Islamic Republic.
He further wrote that Ghaempanah “is not in a position to subject the Leader’s opinion to expert review because the Leader’s opinion itself is the expert judgment within the framework of divine law.”
Addressing Ghaempanah directly, Narimani added: “The problem is your understanding. Your understanding of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist is flawed, and that is why the country’s problems remain unresolved. Instead of negotiating with America and looking to the West to solve the country’s problems, improve your own understanding until it reaches that of the Leader.”
The comments were widely shared by ultra-hardline social media users.
One user, Hamid Khorasani, wrote: “This system is the system of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. Either you do not understand the meaning of Absolute Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, or you do understand and are acting on behalf of the enemy.”
Another user wrote: “You cannot consider your own opinion on par with the opinion of the Leader! According to the Constitution … the Leader’s opinion is the top priority of the entire system and governmental institutions.”
The 'coup' claim spreads
The controversy comes amid an escalating ultra-hardline campaign against the Pezeshkian administration over the US memorandum.
Hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian has already accused Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf of carrying out a “coup” against the Supreme Leader by bypassing his authority to push through the agreement with Washington.
A hardline social media user, Shahram Rashidnia, wrote that “the time for advice and warnings to Pezeshkian’s government is over; the coup against the Leader is now open and explicit.”
He urged supporters to use Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies to defeat what he described as the conspiracy.
Government says remarks distorted
Supporters of the government argue that Ghaempanah was explaining Khamenei’s message, not challenging his authority.
They say the text shows that Khamenei initially held a different view but approved the memorandum after receiving guarantees from Pezeshkian on behalf of the SNSC, while making clear that implementation depended on the United States honoring its commitments and avoiding excessive demands.
The Executive Vice Presidency’s public relations office issued a statement on Wednesday rejecting criticism of Ghaempanah’s remarks, saying they had been taken out of context and distorted.
It said his comments “in no way conflict with the position of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist.”
The statement also warned that “in the current sensitive circumstances, taking officials’ remarks out of context and creating a false dichotomy between the Leader and the state’s institutions not only fails to protect the position of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist but could weaken national cohesion and distort understanding of governance in the Islamic Republic.”
The Iranian newspaper Shargh reported on Thursday that many Iranians in Turkey have had residency renewals rejected, seen sudden changes to their legal status or, in some cases, been ordered to leave the country.
The report said some had rented homes, bought property or established businesses under rules that previously offered a relatively predictable path to renewing short-term residency permits.
Turkey became a major destination for Iranian migrants over the past decade because of its proximity, visa-free short visits and relatively accessible residency procedures.
Thousands of Iranians moved there for work, study, investment or family reasons, settling in cities such as Istanbul, Izmir, Antalya and Alanya.
According to Shargh, the situation began to change after the COVID-19 pandemic, as Ankara tightened migration policies affecting many categories of foreign residents.
One Iranian identified as Sina told the newspaper that immigration officials ordered him to leave Turkey for six months despite renting a home in Izmir for four years.
"I kept explaining that I had rented a house here and they couldn't do this," Sina said. "They behaved politely but kept repeating the same thing. In the end, they said if I objected, I should hire a lawyer."
Another Iranian, Reza, told Shargh he moved to Istanbul with his wife and daughter in 2021 after spending his family's savings on renting a home, furnishing it and registering a company.
When the family applied to renew their residency a year later, officials rejected the application without providing a detailed explanation despite what he described as complete documentation.
Maryam, a fashion designer who opened a small workshop in Antalya, said uncertainty over her residency prevented her from expanding her business or planning for the future.
Tougher enforcement
An immigration lawyer interviewed by Shargh said the changes largely reflect stricter implementation of existing rules rather than major amendments to Turkish immigration law.
The lawyer said short-term residency is not an automatic right and Turkish authorities have broad discretion to approve or reject applications after assessing individual circumstances.
Higher migration following the pandemic, pressure on the housing market, changing security and demographic priorities and restrictions on registering foreign residents in parts of major cities all contributed to tighter enforcement, the lawyer said.
The lawyer also cautioned that renting or purchasing property no longer guarantees residency and advised applicants seeking long-term stays to consider more stable legal pathways such as work permits, student visas or qualifying investment programs. Applicants whose requests are rejected generally retain the right to challenge the decisions before Turkey's administrative courts.
The experiences described by Shargh mirror accounts gathered by the Associated Press following months of conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States, with many Iranians in Turkey describing growing uncertainty over both their legal status and finances.
"There are people who have lived on them for over 10 years," Sedat Albayrak of the Istanbul Bar Association's Refugee and Migrant Rights Center told AP in April, referring to Iranians relying on renewable short-term residence permits instead of obtaining more permanent legal status.
Nearly 100,000 Iranians lived in Turkey in 2025, according to the Turkish Statistical Institute.
The United Nations refugee agency says around 89,000 Iranians entered Turkey after the conflict began, while roughly 72,000 later departed, indicating that many crossed the border only temporarily or continued to third countries where they already held residency or citizenship.
Conflict compounds financial strain
For many Iranian residents, the recent conflict has intensified economic pressures already created by tighter immigration rules.
Nadr Rahim, who has lived in Turkey for 11 years, told AP his family depended on income from a motorcycle showroom in Iran because obtaining permission to work legally in Turkey remained difficult. Sales largely stopped after the fighting began, while internet disruptions complicated financial transfers.
"If the war continues, we will have no choice but to return," Rahim told AP. His children have grown up in Turkey and speak Persian only with difficulty, making the prospect of returning especially challenging.
Another Iranian woman, who requested anonymity, told AP she enrolled at a Turkish university mainly to secure a student visa while working long hours in service jobs to support relatives in Iran.
"I have a bad life in Turkey, and my parents have a bad life in Iran," she said. "I came to Turkey with so much hope, to support my parents and build a future. But now I feel hopeless."
AP also reported that some families have been separated because of residency complications. Bakery worker Sadri Haghshenas said her daughter returned to Tehran after the family missed a residency application deadline and feared deportation proceedings could jeopardize her chances of returning legally to Turkey.
Easy to visit, harder to stay
For Iranians hoping to settle in Turkey, obtaining or renewing residency has become increasingly difficult. Yet for many others, the country continues to serve as the nearest and most accessible destination outside Iran.
The Wall Street Journal reported on June 26 that traffic through the Kapikoy border crossing near Van has begun returning to prewar levels following the ceasefire, with Iranian visitors once again traveling to eastern Turkey for shopping, leisure and entertainment.
Nightclub manager Hüseyin Aşan told the newspaper business at his venue, which caters largely to Iranian visitors, fell by about 70% during the conflict but has since begun recovering.
"We just came from a war, so we're going to have some fun," a visitor from Tehran told the newspaper after crossing into Turkey for a week's holiday.
Others remained uncertain about what awaited them at home. A 27-year-old medical laboratory technician returning to Iran after vacationing in Turkey told the Wall Street Journal: "I don't know who won the war, but the people lost."
