Salutes and anthems: how sports succumbed to Iran's culture war

"The lawmakers had questions and concerns that are legitimate and stem from their supervisory role, which they must exercise, and we also have a duty to provide answers," Araghchi told reporters after the meeting.

Lawmakers were supposed to seek explanations on how the accord, signed in Cairo on Tuesday, complies with legislation suspending cooperation with the agency after June's conflict with Israel.

"In today’s session, some of these concerns were raised, and there was consultation on how to move forward more effectively, neutralize the enemies’ tricks in political and international arenas against the people, and safeguard the country’s interests," Araghchi said.

He described the meeting with lawmakers as "very good, constructive, and scientific."

More than 60 MPs earlier backed a request for a special session with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Supreme National Security Council secretary Ali Larijani to provide clarification. The move came after parliament went into recess until September 27, prompting criticism that oversight was being avoided.

Conservative MP Hamed Yazdian, who initiated the request, said the session was needed to assess “the extent of conformity of the Cairo agreement with the law passed by parliament.”

Strong criticism of Grossi

The deal has sparked sharp reactions from hardline lawmakers. Javad Hosseini-Kia called IAEA chief Rafael Grossi “a Mossad agent” and urged that he be arrested if he enters Iran.

Another MP, Mohammadreza Mohseni-Sani, said inspectors “have no right” to enter Iran until damaged nuclear facilities are restored, warning that if UN sanctions are reimposed under the “snapback” mechanism, parliament would pursue leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Some lawmakers, such as Ahmad Bakhshayesh, have argued Iran should no longer limit itself to peaceful nuclear activities, while others, including Mahmoud Nabavian, have branded the Cairo accord a “cursed agreement.”

By contrast, former nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi has described it as “positive” but cautioned that time is running out for diplomacy.

Araghchi insists the Cairo accord safeguards Iran’s interests and is consistent with the law suspending cooperation. He said it recognizes Tehran’s security concerns, guarantees Iran’s rights, and “creates no access” for inspectors at this stage.

Any monitoring, he added, would only be discussed later with approval from the Supreme National Security Council.

The debate in Tehran comes as France, Germany, and Britain have triggered the UN “snapback” mechanism, which could restore sanctions at the end of September. One of their conditions for pausing the process is renewed IAEA access, a demand the United States and European Union have also emphasized.

In recent interviews with the centrist Entekhab website, media expert Hadi Khaniki, historian Hashem Aghajari, and former minister Abbas Akhoundi all cautioned that time for meaningful change is rapidly running out.

“The war reset societal connections, reducing individualism,” said Hadi Khaniki, an academic and former adviser to President Mohammad Khatami. “This is a moment for reorganization, but the opportunity for change is limited.”

Khaniki pointed to the temporary surge of unity during the June–July war with Israel, urging authorities to build on that momentum by fostering public satisfaction rather than relying solely on control.

“Before the war,” he noted, “issues like gasoline shortages, water scarcity, sanctions, and inequality had eroded social capital and trust in institutions. The war, however, triggered a ‘people’s war’ dynamic, fostering temporary solidarity and patriotism.”

To avoid a return to pre-war discontent, he warned, the government must reduce threats, revise failed policies, and prioritize public well-being.

Iranian Reformation

Historian Hashem Aghajari echoed similar concerns.

Best known for his 2002 blasphemy trial, he called for a “Protestant-like” overhaul of Iranian Shiism to meet contemporary needs.

“Islam in Iran needs its own Reformation, not to abandon faith, but to liberate it from clerical monopolies. Just as Luther challenged Rome, we must question the absolutism of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurisconsult),” he said.

Turning to the economic despair gripping the country, Aghajari added: “Sanctions and mismanagement have turned hope into hunger. The youth see no future unless we democratize the economy and end the kleptocracy.”

He warned the window for transformation is rapidly closing: “This opportunity is fleeting, measured in months, not years. Seize it with inclusive policies, or watch the society splinter into irreconcilable tribes.”

‘Weak mandates’

Although Aghajari’s interview was later redacted, presumably under official pressure, its transcript remains accessible through a related Entekhab interview with former minister Abbas Akhoundi.

In his September 6 interview, Akhoundi argued that Iran’s leaders operate with weak mandates and short-term horizons.

“A president elected by roughly 30% of eligible voters, and lawmakers who won less than 5%, can only pursue short-term goals,” he said.

This mode of governance, he added, had failed for nearly five decades and is unlikely to bear fruit now.

“Tehran faces three options to break the deadlock: pursue a comprehensive agreement with the West, escalate tensions to force a resolution, or continue the current inertia, ‘a suspension within a suspension,’ which would further damage livelihoods and financial stability.”

Hardline lawmakers and media outlets say chief negotiator Abbas Araghchi and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi have given contradictory accounts of the scope of inspector access to Iranian facilities.

Araghchi insisted the agreement limits inspector access for now to the Bushehr power plant, while calling it a “step in the right direction.” Grossi, by contrast, said it establishes “practical modalities” for inspections covering “all facilities and installations” in Iran.

The ultra-hardline daily Kayhan, funded by the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader, accused negotiators of bypassing parliament’s authority.

“The bitter experience of the JCPOA and the deceitful games of ‘fact sheets’ is being repeated once again—this time with a counterpart that has a record of espionage, servitude to Israel,” a Thursday editorial read.

The paper also claimed the E3 of France, Germany and the United Kingdom delayed activating the snapback mechanism and extended the deadline for reinstating UN sanctions only to prolong psychological pressure on Iran.

No trust for the IAEA

Hamid Rasaei, an ultra-hardline lawmaker, complained that he has not even been able to see the contents of the Cairo agreement.

“What Araghchi says about inspections would only be meaningful if either the text of the agreement was published or the IAEA had formally confirmed it,” he posted on X.

Rasaei also accused Grossi of passing information to Tehran’s foes and warned against granting the Agency access to bombed sites.

“What value does a commitment from an organization that has never condemned US and Israeli military strikes really have?” he asked.

Rasaei and other hardline MPs who recently tabled a “triple-urgency” bill to pull Iran out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) now argue the Cairo agreement tramples on a June bill requiring suspension of cooperation with the IAEA.

Who benefits?

Amirhossein Sabeti, another ultra-hardline lawmaker and adviser to former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, described the Cairo deal bluntly as a “disaster.”

“Araghchi’s deal with Grossi undermines national interests, paves the way for renewed attacks on Iran, and violates Parliament’s legislation,” he wrote on his Telegram channel.

“The return of IAEA spies and inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites serves the Agency’s interests but provides no benefit whatsoever to Iran,” he added, calling the agreement “passive and born of weakness.”

EU, US watching

Meanwhile, European governments have welcomed the Cairo accord but remain cautious.

“It is not enough for Iran to make promises for tomorrow, we need to see evidence from Iran today,” the E3—which triggered the snapback mechanism last month—said in an open letter, noting that key sites remain closed and the timeline for full access is unclear.

The United States on Wednesday urged Iran to take “immediate and concrete action” to meet its nuclear safeguards obligations, warning the IAEA board may need to act if Tehran fails to cooperate.

Grossi had announced Tuesday that Tehran would grant inspectors access to nuclear sites. But Araghchi quickly walked it back, saying it was only “a one-time access to the Bushehr Power Plant that had been granted earlier.”

He added that any future agreement depended on halting “hostile actions against Iran, including activation of the trigger mechanism.”

The mixed signals captured Iran’s familiar pattern: apparent concessions abroad, followed by dismissive clarifications at home.

Araghchi himself has a record of burnishing his toughness after negotiations.

In 2014, he claimed he had shouted at US negotiators and thrown his pen at Wendy Sherman; the tale was later debunked, with witnesses recalling a calm exchange and even small talk about grandchildren.

Reasons for optimism

Despite Araghchi’s backtracking, many in Tehran saw Grossi’s visit as a sign Iran may be edging toward engagement.

With the snapback of international sanctions due in less than ten days, moderates urged the government to seize the moment.

Khabar Online called the Cairo deal “a first step to stop the snapback and pave the way for constructive negotiations with the United States.”

Reformist Rouydad24 and conservative Farhikhtegan alike said “Iran appears to be taking a new approach.”

That chorus grew louder on Sunday.

Prominent reformist Behzad Nabavi told Etemad that “a change in paradigms” is needed, insisting “wisdom calls for negotiations with the United States.” Former lawmaker Ali Motahari went further, urging President Masoud Pezeshkian to meet Donald Trump at the UN General Assembly in New York.

Missed Openings

The precedent is shaky.

In 2000, President Mohammad Khatami was moments from a handshake with Bill Clinton before hardliners stopped him; he reportedly ducked into a bathroom to avoid the encounter.

In 2013, Hassan Rouhani’s brief phone call with Barack Obama drew a public rebuke from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Both moments revealed how even modest steps toward dialogue can be reversed in Tehran.

Araghchi’s Cairo reversal echoed past retreats and left many questioning whether Tehran can commit to real engagement. Skeptics argue that optimism will always be checked by the system’s instinct for resistance.

News of the Grossi agreement briefly pushed the dollar below one million rials on Tuesday, only for it to rebound above one million and ten thousand by Wednesday. Traders complained of volatility, while regional insecurity after Israel’s strike in Doha added to the pressure.

Even the markets seem unsure which way Iran is heading.

The rare attack on Qatari soil—a US ally and mediator in the Israel-Hamas conflict—took place Tuesday during a Hamas leadership meeting to consider a US-backed ceasefire proposal. Qatar’s Prime Minister denounced the assault as “state terrorism,” saying it sabotaged peace efforts.

Iranian officials moved quickly to condemn the strike. President Masoud Pezeshkian phoned Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani within hours, calling the attack an “illegal, inhumane and anti-peace action.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei described it as a violation of international law and Qatar’s national sovereignty, warning: “Global inaction in the face of Zionist regime’s crimes in Palestine and West Asia threatens all.”

National security chief Ali Larijani echoed the sentiment in Arabic.

“The message of the Zionist entity’s recent crime in Qatar: O countries of the region! Prepare yourselves for my upcoming dominance!” he posted on X.

Qatar-Iran relationship

Tehran’s framing draws on recent memory. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political bureau chief, was assassinated in Tehran in July 2024 while attending Pezeshkian’s inauguration—a killing Iran cast as part of a broader campaign to decapitate the Hamas leadership.

Iran has also sought to distinguish its conduct from Israel’s.

When it struck the US Al Udeid air base in June, Tehran notified Qatar in advance and emphasized that Doha was not the target. Qatar condemned the strike but acknowledged Iran’s outreach and later expressed hope for continued good ties.

On September 4, Pezeshkian sent a message through top diplomat Abbas Araghchi requesting Sheikh Tamim’s help in facilitating dialogue with the US and the E3 to resume nuclear negotiations.

‘Lesson for US allies’

Many in Tehran framed Israel’s strike as a gift to the Islamic Republic’s regional narrative.

Mohammad Mokhber, a former vice president and close advisor to Khamenei, said the incident shows the futility of relying on the Abraham Accords.

Hardline activist Hatef Salehi called it a “lesson” for US allies in the region.

“It demonstrated, in the clearest way, that no matter how much Arab states serve US interests … Washington’s absolute priority is always the protection of the Israeli regime,” he posted on X.

Even moderate voices highlighted potential benefits for Tehran.

Journalist Reza Ghobeishavi argued the incident may push Gulf states closer to Iran.

“Previously, there was an idea that Israel would defend the Gulf countries against Iran, but that notion has now been weakened,” he wrote on X. “Israel’s attack on Qatar benefits Iran’s camp and Israel’s opponents, while harming the camp that supports normalizing relations with Israel.”