Hardliner accuses Ghalibaf of paving way for coup through US deal

The unusually candid warnings came at a two-day economic conference in Tehran that brought together senior economists, policymakers and business leaders after being postponed three times because of regional instability and wartime conditions.

Speakers said the latest escalation with Washington had transformed discussions from long-term reform into managing an economy under renewed military pressure.

Former presidential adviser Masoud Nili delivered one of the starkest assessments, warning that Iran's economy was moving from a chronic but manageable malaise into an active crisis.

Years of structural mismanagement, he said, were now visibly breaking open, while inflation had entered a "more slippery phase" in which subsidies and social safety nets were no longer sufficient to protect household welfare.

Media coverage reflected the divide between government officials seeking to reassure the public and independent economists warning that structural weaknesses were becoming harder to ignore.

Economic daily Donya-ye-Eghtesad listed chronic inflation, weak and unstable growth, persistent budget deficits, foreign-exchange volatility, dual exchange rates, pension-fund insolvency, foreign-policy pressures and rising geopolitical risks among the country's most urgent challenges.

Economist Mehrdad Sepahvand, one of the conference organizers, said the event had been delayed three times because of the regional crisis.

Investment gap

Former Central Bank Governor Hossein Abdoh Tabrizi argued that banking reform was essential, saying financial institutions must become "efficient allocators of capital rather than money-printing engines."

Although public confidence in the banking system had held up during recent regional conflict, he said, deeper reforms were needed to channel savings into productive investment.

Economist Mohammad-Mehdi Behkish said rebuilding damaged infrastructure, restoring economic growth and modernizing industry would require about $500 billion in investment.

Domestic resources alone were nowhere near sufficient, he argued, making greater foreign engagement and integration into the global economy indispensable.

Alireza Bakhtiari, director of the Donya-ye-Eghtesad Media Group, said policymakers remained trapped between what he described as a "survival paradigm" and a "growth paradigm," arguing that many of Iran's domestic economic constraints could not be resolved without major foreign-policy decisions.

Government response

Government-linked outlets focused instead on Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati, who acknowledged the severity of the economic situation while urging against panic.

Hemmati cited Iranian and international data showing a 47 percent decline in real per-capita income, saying the purchasing power of the average Iranian had fallen to levels last seen in the late 1990s.

Calling for "realism without doom-mongering," he argued that neither denial nor exaggeration would improve the economy.

"Price stability alone doesn't create goods," he said. "Only investment and productivity can sustainably restore Iranians' purchasing power."

Inflation pressures

Independent economists painted an even darker picture.

Hossein Tavakolian warned that inflation was entering a more dangerous phase.

Monthly inflation, once around 3 percent and equivalent to roughly 40 percent annually, was now periodically reaching 10 percent, he said, with nearly every major consumer category entering what he described as "red zones."

Academic economist Teymour Rahmani argued that inflation in Iran was fundamentally a political and fiscal problem rather than simply a monetary one.

Although direct government borrowing from the central bank had been curtailed, he said, fiscal pressures had merely shifted onto commercial banks, postponing rather than solving the country's inflation problem.

The backlash followed Araghchi's appearance on the YouTube program Majaray-e Jang (Story of War), in which he discussed the wars with the United States and Israel, internal security planning, succession preparations and negotiations with Washington. He also said security gaps that enabled attacks on senior officials and leadership sites "probably still have not been fully resolved."

"If you wanted publicity or to repair your image, you made it worse," Mostafa Khoshcheshm, a political analyst appearing on Iranian state television, said in response to the interview.

Araghchi's remarks, Khoshcheshm said, reflected what he described as "a lack of strategic thinking," adding: "I am genuinely concerned." He called the interview "a disaster in public relations, image-building and image repair."

Araghchi had said attacks on the former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's compound were carried out through "security gaps" that continued to affect decision-makers and the public atmosphere.

• 

  Beyond espionage: Araghchi says spies seek to shape Iran's decisions

He also described wartime contingency plans, including preparations for the possible killing of the country's leader and the government's response to attacks on senior officials.

Conservative newspapers criticize disclosures

Javan, a newspaper affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, wrote on Tuesday that confirming details surrounding the attacks, discussing the day the former leader was killed or revealing that the foreign minister had no contact with new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei were not matters that should have been disclosed publicly.

"Please keep the locations of the remaining tunnels and military bases to yourself in future interviews, and exercise restraint when discussing important events," the newspaper wrote.

Safeguarding national security, protecting public trust and defending the country's interests should outweigh the appeal of widely viewed media interviews, Javan added.

Conservative outlet Tabnak also questioned Araghchi's decision to give the interview to documentary filmmaker and online host Javad Mogoei rather than an experienced journalist.

• 

  Beyond espionage: Araghchi says spies seek to shape Iran's decisions

The outlet wrote that some of the information discussed was likely to be of greater value to Israeli and US intelligence services than to viewers. It also argued that diplomacy and journalism are both specialized professions, asking whether senior officials should grant interviews to content creators without established experience covering political affairs.

The commentary compared Araghchi's media approach with that of former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, arguing that although Zarif also preferred interviews with individuals rather than media organizations, he chose interviewers who better understood political and security sensitivities.

Reaction from Raisi allies

Raja News, a media outlet close to supporters of former president Ebrahim Raisi, also criticized the interview, focusing on remarks by Mogoei identifying locations of underground tunnels and saying military commanders frequently used them.

Araghchi, the outlet said, should not have disclosed such information and argued that the program's producers should have removed those passages during editing. It also questioned why the host publicly identified locations associated with senior commanders, even if foreign intelligence agencies were already aware of them.

The wide-ranging interview touched on issues that Iranian officials have rarely discussed publicly, including internal security failures, wartime contingency plans and high-level decision-making during the conflict.

The remark marked a subtle but significant shift. Iranian officials have long acknowledged espionage and intelligence breaches, particularly after the precision with which senior commanders, nuclear scientists and political leaders have been located and targeted exposed profound vulnerabilities within Iran's security establishment.

Speaking in the first part of a nearly 90-minute podcast interview, Araghchi suggested foreign intelligence activity inside Iran may be something more ambitious than gathering intelligence: shaping the decisions of the state itself.

He made the remarks when asked by establishment podcaster Javad Mogoei about the opening hours of the war, when coordinated strikes killed Iran's supreme leader along with several senior military, security and political figures.

"I believe this security breach is not limited merely to infiltration and obtaining information," Araghchi said.

"Sometimes it also exists in influencing the decision-making process itself. And even more importantly, it extends to shaping our psychological environment and public perception."

Araghchi did not identify any foreign intelligence service or explain how such influence might operate, although Israel appeared to be the implied actor in the discussion.

To Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, that distinction was the most revealing part of the interview.

"The job of these assets isn't just to leak the location of leaders in a certain place to be killed," Vatanka told Iran International. "It is to influence decision-making. It's to influence the policy process."

Vatanka believes Araghchi's remarks were directed as much at Iran's internal political debate as at foreign intelligence operations.

"He's hinting that elements inside the regime are openly arguing for policies that the enemy—the United States and Israel—prefer," he said. "Is he talking about the pro-war hawks? Is this part of scoring points against one another? Could well be."

"These things are obviously not accidental," he added. "This is very much messaging at a moment of war."

Mogoei nevertheless raised another possibility, invoking Masoud Kashmiri, the alleged infiltrator who rose through the ranks of the Islamic Republic before the 1981 bombing that killed President Mohammad Ali Rajai and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar.

"Perhaps we have another Kashmiri," he suggested.

Araghchi did not endorse the comparison, saying Iran's adversaries had become familiar with the supreme leader's routine and that the Intelligence Ministry meeting may simply have coincided by chance.

Whether Araghchi was describing a sophisticated foreign influence operation or speaking more broadly about the effect of outside pressure on Iran's internal politics is where analysts begin to diverge.

Omid Memarian, an Iran analyst at DAWN, said one possible manifestation of the kind of influence Araghchi described would be officials advocating policies that prolong the war despite the damage continued conflict causes to the Islamic Republic's own interests.

"Some of the decisions they are making are exactly the things that Israelis might wish for," Memarian told Iran International.

"When it comes to Iran's national security and national interests, they don't make sense,” he added. "We see the smoke. We don't see the fire."

Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Araghchi's comments should also be viewed through the lens of Iran's internal political rivalries.

"That doesn't mean these guys are doves by any measure," Taleblu told Iran International. "But it does mean that they have different views about how best to preserve, protect and defend the Islamic Republic."

Taleblu said public acknowledgments of security failures are often aimed less at the Iranian public than at rival political factions or security institutions, with officials defending their own approach while criticizing competing strategies.

He said Araghchi's comments also highlighted a less discussed aspect of intelligence operations: their ability to shape leaders' perceptions rather than merely gather information.

"Influence is to shape their decision-making, perhaps by lulling the Supreme Leader's office into a false sense of security and back into the routines that existed before," he said.

The directive came a week after the collapse of a ceasefire with the United States and the resumption of fighting in southern Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

It told media outlets covering attacks on civilian facilities and infrastructure to “refrain from publishing vital information,” avoid creating “fear and alarm among the public,” and withhold details about the extent of destruction or its impact on the delivery of public services.

The council said such information could be used “by the enemy to assess the effectiveness of its attacks.” It instructed media outlets to obtain information through the most senior provincial official responsible for any institution or facility that had been hit.

The directive also ordered media outlets to describe disruptions to public services using phrases such as “the issue is under review and being resolved,” rather than report the extent of the damage or provide specific details about its effect on services.

It said the Health Ministry and emergency services remained the only official and authoritative sources for civilian casualty figures.

The order followed a sixth consecutive night of US strikes on Iran. US Central Command said fighter jets, drones and warships had used precision weapons against dozens of military targets, including coastal surveillance and air-defense sites, military logistics infrastructure and maritime capabilities on Qeshm Island and near Bandar Abbas.

The strikes could expand further. Axios reported on Friday that the Trump administration plans to send dozens more aerial refueling planes to Israel as the US president considers a broader offensive against Iran, potentially targeting power plants, other infrastructure and additional nuclear facilities.

Iranian media reported that five bridges in Hormozgan province were hit, along with the railway station in the coastal city of Bandar Khamir and Iranshahr airport in southeastern Iran.

Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency said seven people were killed in strikes on bridges in Bandar Khamir.

The attacks also damaged power lines in Bandar Abbas and surrounding areas, causing outages, while a tower at the port of Chabahar was brought down. Iran said the tower monitored commercial traffic, while the United States described it as part of an IRGC surveillance network used to target vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

With major international news organizations lacking permanent bureaus inside Iran, the directive further concentrates wartime reporting in the hands of state-controlled institutions and makes independent verification of attacks, casualties and infrastructure damage more difficult.

The debate has intensified since Iran targeted a vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last week, prompting a renewed US military campaign that has included days of strikes on ports, bridges, airports and military facilities across Iran’s southern provinces.

Even as US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf have continued to defend diplomacy backed by military preparedness, the fighting has persisted and the prospect of a wider conflict has grown.

The criticism has been directed in part at ultrahardline figures such as Qom Seminary Chancellor Alireza Arafi, who has called for further war against the United States and an end to negotiations.

Two recent commentaries—one by former lawmaker and former National Security Committee chairman Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, the other by political analyst Abdolrahman Fathollahi—reflect the growing push to hold hardliners accountable for the costs of confrontation.

While one focuses on political responsibility for failed diplomacy, the other highlights the burden borne by communities on Iran’s southern frontier.

‘Defeating diplomacy’

Writing in the moderate daily Toseh Irani, Falahatpisheh accused hardline factions of using what he called a distorted interpretation of religion to obstruct diplomatic opportunities.

“I believe part of these two major wars against Iran was the result of this very definition of religious beliefs by extremists, who are now turning to distorting religion to defeat diplomacy,” he wrote.

He argued that the same factions had repeatedly promised better outcomes while blocking agreements that could have reduced tensions.

“They are the exact same people who blocked two good agreements during the major periods of 2021 and 2022, claiming they would forge a better deal,” he wrote. “But in practice, not only was no agreement achieved, but two major wars were imposed on Iran.”

Falahatpisheh called for the prosecution of those he said had turned diplomatic opportunities into military conflict.

‘Patriotism from a safe distance’

A second commentary, published Thursday in Shargh, shifted the focus from political responsibility to the human cost of confrontation.

Under the title The Country’s Future and the Triangle of Extremism, Costs, and Responsibility, Fathollahi warned about the toll of intensifying US airstrikes on Iran’s southern coastal provinces.

He pointed to public campaigns calling for outspoken opponents of negotiations to be sent to the front lines, accusing them of practising what he described as “patriotism from a safe distance.”

“One certainly cannot beat the drums of war from the safe margins of the capital behind podiums, while dumping the costs of those decisions onto the people living in the front lines,” Fathollahi wrote, highlighting the plight of communities bearing the brunt of the fighting over the Strait of Hormuz.

The comments come after a week of US strikes on infrastructure across Iran’s Persian Gulf provinces, where dozens have been killed or injured and many more affected by transport disruption, electricity blackouts and water shortages during the height of summer.

For Fathollahi, the question is no longer simply one of military strategy but whether Iran’s leaders are willing to change course before the costs grow even higher.

“Rethinking certain political approaches and utilizing all expert and diplomatic capacities is not a choice,” he concluded, “but a necessity to safeguard national interests and reduce the costs imposed on society.”