Tehran papers show divide over talks

While reformist outlets welcomed what they described as swift progress and a move toward technical-level discussions, conservative dailies backed the negotiation team but renewed warnings against what they called US hostility and external opposition from diaspora critics.

On Sunday, Ham-Mihan, a reformist paper aligned with technocratic factions, described the shift to expert-level talks as evidence of agreement on core principles, such as Iran’s continued uranium enrichment.

It called this “a sign of rapid progress” but warned that it did not guarantee a final deal. “The stage reached suggests a framework is in place, but final terms will be decided in detail-oriented discussions,” the editorial said.

The paper also predicted the alleged indirect format of talks may soon shift to direct engagement, arguing that detailed negotiations are impractical through intermediaries.

Shargh, another reformist paper, featured interviews with four former officials and political figures. All welcomed the apparent momentum.

“If external spoilers are kept at bay, this can lead to tangible gains for the Islamic Republic,” said reformist activist Mohammad-Sadegh Javadi-Hessar, adding that European threats to trigger the snapback mechanism appear to have receded.

In contrast, the conservative Farhikhtegan focused on perceived foreign interference. Its lead story, titled “Lobbyists of Tension,” accused a range of organizations—including American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies—of undermining the talks.

It said, without evidence, that these groups, through “financial backing and intelligence ties,” aim to maintain pressure on Iran and shape US foreign policy against Tehran.

The paper also said that "Iranian dissidents abroad were spreading misleading information to derail the negotiations,” framing the process as vulnerable to outside manipulation.

The hardline Kayhan, viewed as reflecting the Supreme Leader’s position, struck a defiant tone. In a lengthy commentary, it warned that negotiations were historically a tool of colonial pressure and argued that only military and nuclear strength had forced the US to the table.

In another piece, Kayhan wrote that excluding Europe and regional states in the talks had allowed Iran to slow the pace and avoid compromise. The writer said “indirect talks humiliated the US, reinforcing Tehran’s standing.”

Saying that US enmity toward the Islamic Republic would persist regardless of the outcome, it added, “The world is watching a diplomatic clash between satanic and divine powers,” as resistance to diplomatic means continued.

It is still too early to definitively assess the ongoing negotiations with the United States and determine whether an agreement will be reached, according to Ebrahim Rezaei, the spokesperson for the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee.

Rezaei said, "We still have serious doubts about the ideas and intentions of the Americans and their will to reach an agreement."

However, Rezaei also mentioned a potential point of progress in the initial discussions. "In the initial negotiations, the Americans accepted Iran's right to enrichment, and we will by no means back down from uranium enrichment in Iran, for which blood has been shed,” he said without explaining whose blood.

Another member of the parliamentary committee, Yaghoub Rezazadeh, said on Sunday that that the indirect US talks have followed the Supreme Leader's guidelines, commending the Iranian negotiators for their regular briefings both before and after each round of discussions.

He said the committee will continue to assess the process in accordance with the so-called Strategic Action Law and the Supreme Leader's guidelines. Kazem Gharibabadi, deputy foreign minister, briefed the committee on the matter earlier in the day.

The Strategic Action Law to Lift Sanctions and Safeguard the National Interests of Iran, passed in 2020 aimed at more parliamentary influence on nuclear policy, mandated a rapid escalation of nuclear activities and a significant reduction in IAEA monitoring in reaction to the US' withdrawal from the JCPOA and the subsequent reimposition of sanctions.

The resumption of negotiations between Iran and the United States in Rome has drawn criticism from Iranians who view the talks as irrelevant to their daily lives and potentially beneficial only to the leadership in Tehran.

Dozens of messages sent to Iran International reflect a widespread belief that any agreement would in fact bolster the Islamic Republic while offering no relief to a population struggling under economic hardship and political repression.

Read the full report.

Dozens of messages sent to Iran International reflect a widespread belief that any agreement would in fact bolster the Islamic Republic while offering no relief to a population struggling under economic hardship and political repression.

The talks, held Saturday in the Italian capital, mark the second phase of quiet discussions over Iran’s nuclear program. According to diplomatic sources cited by Iran International, the Iranian delegation proposed a three-stage plan aimed at reducing tensions in exchange for sanctions relief and access to frozen assets.

But reactions gathered by Iran International painted a picture of deep skepticism. “If the Islamic Republic survives through this, nothing will change for us,” one audience said. “Only if the clergy are rooted out will people’s conditions improve.”

A number of respondents expressed hope that the negotiations would fail, believing that a collapse of talks could hasten the downfall of the ruling system.

“As long as the Islamic Republic remains, nothing will happen in favor of the people. A large percentage of the population firmly wants the fate of the Islamic Republic to be decisively resolved,” said a citizen.

“Only if the clerics are uprooted from Iran will the situation for the people improve,” said another.

“The only result will be more time for them to build weapons,” one person said, calling the negotiations a “stalling tactic.”

Others echoed similar sentiments, with one recalling the 2015 nuclear deal under then-President Hassan Rouhani. “It freed up money that the regime used to empower its regional proxies,” said another comment by an audience. “It didn’t help ordinary Iranians.”

Fox News, citing analysts, reported that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s decision to reopen dialogue was influenced by military threats from former US President Donald Trump.

The same report said Tehran temporarily froze its nuclear weapons activities after the US invaded Iraq in 2003, underlining how perceived military pressure has shaped the Islamic Republic’s behavior.

Still, many Iranians remain unmoved by the prospect of another deal. “Even if sanctions are lifted, only the children of the elite will benefit,” another citizen said. “Ordinary people will just get poorer.”

Iran International has previously reported that Iran’s proposed roadmap seeks to buy time to rebuild air defenses and missile capabilities damaged by an Israeli attack last year.

One diplomatic source told the outlet the Islamic Republic “is dragging out the process to regroup militarily.”

For many Iranians, this assessment rings true. “These talks are just extending our suffering,” another one said in a voice message. “The money will go to weapons and repression, not to bread or jobs.”

In the days following the first round of indirect talks in Oman on April 12, which were followed by further discussions in Rome on Saturday, clerics, political figures, and media outlets compared a potential US-Iran agreement with a treaty the Prophet Muhammad signed with his adversaries in Mecca in 628 CE, showing a rare softened tone.

The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah allowed for a ten-year truce and provided Muslim access to pilgrimage in Mecca the following year in exchange for several concessions to the Prophet’s enemies.

Ayatollah Kazem Nourmofidi, Khamenei’s representative in Golestan Province, said in a sermon that at the time, some Muslims saw the treaty as unjust and believed the Prophet should not have conceded.

“But that peace proved to be a clear victory,” he argued, justifying the talks which had initially received so much criticism from the country's hardliners who have long opposed negotiations with the US.

An article on the current talks with the US published by Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), similarly referred to the Prophet's negotiations with the enemies of Islam and the controversial Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, but argued that his strategic flexibility and concessions led to far greater conquests.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei made no direct reference to the recent Muscat talks during a speech to senior military commanders after the first round of talks in Oman but adopted a tone of cautious pragmatism later. “We are neither overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic about these talks,” he said—before offering a stark caveat: “I am very pessimistic about the other side.”

Khamenei’s calibrated remarks reflect a blend of strategic openness to diplomacy and deep skepticism about American intentions, appeasing the hardliners.

This is not the first time religious symbolism has been invoked to justify shifts in foreign policy. In 2013, as Iran began talks that led to the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), Khamenei referred to his shift as a “heroic flexibility”—a reference to Imam Hassan, the second Shiite Imam, who accepted a truce with a hostile ruler to protect himself and his followers from harm.

Today, Khamenei’s renewed openness to negotiation has again fractured Iran’s hardline camp. Some factions have moved to align with the Supreme Leader’s position. Others—particularly ultra-hardliners who cannot openly challenge Khamenei without facing political consequences—remain visibly frustrated.