Iran International
Iran’s president is facing a storm of backlash after twice straying into politically fraught territory on live television, first by suggesting talks with Washington were preferable to war, then by downplaying the stakes of the Zangezur Corridor dispute.
“Do you want to fight?” he asked in an apparent address to Tehran’s hardliners. “Well, you did, but they hit us. If we rebuild the nuclear establishments, they are going to target them again. What can we do if we do not negotiate?”
Moments later, he sought to soften the remark: “Of course we will not do anything against the Supreme Leader’s will.”
But the attempted walk-back did little to blunt the reaction.
Kayhan, the hardline daily whose chief is appointed by supreme leader Ali Khamenei, called his comment a product of “ignorance.”
“Some of our officials are preoccupied by the war–negotiation dichotomy,” Kayhan wrote, even as the United States and Israel “begged Iran for a ceasefire.”
Mishap reloaded
Hours later, Pezeshkian added fuel to the fire when asked by a state TV reporter about the US-brokered Zangezur Corridor through Armenia’s Syunik region.
He said foreign minister Abbas Araghchi had assured him it had “nothing to do with Iran’s interests,” contradicting — among others — the Revolutionary Guards and Khamenei’s decade-old assertion that the project was detrimental to Armenia and that Tehran would remain firm in opposing it.
The comment was immediately seized upon by political rivals. Aladdin Boroujerdi, an influential hardline MP, and Khamenei’s chief adviser Ali Akbar Velayati had already made clear their opposition to the corridor.
By appearing unaware of that stance, Pezeshkian handed critics an opening to question his political capacity and grasp of state priorities.
Ultraconservative outlets accused him of echoing US president Donald Trump’s threats against Iran and undermining the country’s right to enrich uranium.
‘Making war more likely’
Vatan Emrooz branded his stance “withdrawal and surrender,” while Javan— affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards—criticized him for defending his positions as “coordinated with Khamenei” rather than engaging critics directly.
On social media, hardline propagandist Ali Akbar Raefipour dismissed the remarks as “fallacy, nonsense, and paradoxical.”
US-educated ultraconservative academic Foad Izadi argued that Pezeshkian’s comments made renewed strikes on Iran more likely. “US officials will think another attack on Iran will not be costly,” he posted on X.
Not all reactions were hostile, however.
Some supporters argued his remarks reflected a realistic approach in a tense period, pointing to the recent reshuffle that saw veteran conservative Ali Larijani return to Iran’s national security council as one of the two supreme leader representatives.
“Possibly, Larijani has got Khamenei’s full backing for negotiations with Washington, and Pezeshkian is trying to make the idea of negotiations less costly in the political circles inside Iran,” reformist outlet Rouydad24 quoted economist Sadegh Alhosseini as saying on Monday.
