Resignations mount in Iranian government as senior adviser quits

“Iran is a different place” after the June strikes, Trump said aboard his plane en route to Florida on Friday. “Iran wants to negotiate a deal, too. Everybody wants to negotiate with us now.” He said this shift would not have happened “if we didn’t have military strength, if we didn’t rebuild our military in my first term.” He added that there had been “tremendous interest” in the Abraham Accords “since we put Iran out of business.”

The comments came a day after a senior aide in Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office outlined strict conditions under which talks with the United States could take place. Mehdi Fazaeli said negotiations were “not absolutely forbidden” if they were tightly controlled and served Iran’s higher interests, while stressing what he called deep mistrust of Washington.

Fazaeli said Khamenei had at times allowed narrow contacts on Iraq, Afghanistan and nuclear issues, but rejected talks that could be seen as retreat. Negotiations collapsed after Israel launched surprise strikes on Iran in June, followed by US attacks on nuclear facilities that killed hundreds of civilians and military personnel.

The UN nuclear watchdog said this week it has been unable to check Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile for five months. Before June, it had confirmed Iran held about 440 kilograms enriched to 60 percent.

Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote to the UN chief this week saying Trump had publicly admitted to directing Israel’s initial strikes and urged the United Nations to seek reparations from Washington.

Aliabadi said the price of sending desalinated water from the south to the capital was far above what the state could justify in day-to-day planning. “This is not an economic option,” he said, adding that officials “will do whatever is needed” if people’s safety is at risk.

He said Tehran’s water stress meant all workable options had to be reviewed but said some crops consumed water in ways that “do not make economic sense” and should not be supported.

Aliabadi said large desalination sites were being built in Chabahar, Bandar Abbas and Khuzestan to strengthen water supplies in the south and draw in private investment. If those plants ease pressure in the south, he said, water now moved upstream could instead be kept for Tehran and northern areas, though he said this needed detailed study.

Former minister voices strong objection

Former transport minister Abbas Akhoundi criticized the approach, saying it overlooks environmental limits and the long-term cost for the public.

He wrote that the government could not “force nature to bend to machines” and said both capital relocation plans and major desalination transfers misunderstood why Iran faces deep water stress. He said such projects would burden the country without solving the core problem and would mainly benefit contractors.

Water specialists warn Iran is nearing what they describe as water bankruptcy, where use has exceeded supply for years and the reserves that once fed major cities have been depleted.

Kaveh Madani, director of the UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, told Eye for Iran that Tehran’s reservoirs are near historic lows and that the capital is approaching “day zero,” when steady tap water can no longer be assumed.

He said if winter rains fall short, daily life in major cities could shift to storage tanks, tanker deliveries and bottled water.

From steadfast loyalists of the Islamic Republic to secular, pro-Western dissidents, the response was swift and fierce.

To Iranians, these islands are not bargaining chips in regional diplomacy; they are emblems of sovereignty, woven into the texture of national identity. Yet, once again, Europe misjudged the sensitivities of the very society it claims to champion.

Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa islands have been held by Tehran since 1971 after the withdrawal of British forces from the Persian Gulf. They are claimed by the United Arab Emirates, but voices across the Iranian political spectrum reject that.

In a joint statement last month, the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) urged a peaceful settlement to the issue or its referral to the International Court of Justice.

Iran rejected the statement and summoned European ambassadors in protest.

For decades, Western policymakers have oscillated between containment and engagement, human-rights advocacy and strategic pragmatism—without ever truly understanding the national psyche that binds Iranians together across divides of religion and ideology.

Unlike many post-Ottoman or post-colonial societies in the region, Iran is defined by a deep sense of civilizational continuity. Its modern nationalism did not arise from a struggle to unite disparate tribes but from the preservation of a centuries-old cultural identity.

This makes Iran simultaneously ancient and modern, conservative and revolutionary. It also explains why gestures that seem minor to outsiders—like the choice of a name for the Persian Gulf—carry profound symbolic weight.

‘Sing O’Iran’

Even the Islamic Republic, which for decades has relied on religious and ideological slogans to sustain its legitimacy, instinctively recognizes the power of this sentiment when under pressure.

During the recent Israeli strikes that killed several senior Revolutionary Guards commanders, authorities abruptly set aside their usual religious fervor for overt nationalism.

The defining moment came when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei asked his official singer to perform “O Iran”—a patriotic anthem long shunned by the clerical establishment. The symbolism wasn’t lost on Iran’s rivals either.

In Persian-language media, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly invoked Iran’s ancient civilization, cited Cyrus the Great, and emphasized Israel’s respect for Iran’s territorial integrity—appealing to the very patriotic pride that Western leaders too often misjudge or inadvertently offend.

Missing solidarity

Paradoxically, Iran stands apart from many of its neighbors: its rulers are among the most radical, but its society is among the most secular, Western-oriented and civic-minded.

Yet Western governments have repeatedly failed to connect with this civic energy. Whether through regime change or gradual reform, they have struggled to earn the trust of Iran’s secular opposition.

The 2009 Green Movement remains a turning point. When millions of protesters urged Barack Obama to choose between them and the Islamic Republic, his muted rhetoric on the demonstrations disappointed many.

The protests were crushed, and many Iranians concluded that the West had chosen stability over solidarity. Since then, the credibility gap has only widened.

Cultural identity

Even well-intentioned human-rights initiatives often reinforce that mistrust.

A sprawling network of NGOs and advocacy groups—mostly funded by Western grants—has created a class of professional activists in exile. Their reports, while often accurate, tend to mirror donor expectations more than the full complexity of Iranian society.

The result is an echo chamber: the West hears what it already believes, rather than what Iranians are actually saying.

Western analysts often interpret Iran through Europe’s own historical lens, where nationalism emerged from state formation. But Iran’s identity long predates its state; its nationalism is cultural before it is political.

Academic frameworks focused on ethnic fragmentation or postcolonial grievance may resonate in Western circles but often alienate Iranians who see their struggle as a defense of national unity against a theocratic ideology.

Respect, not rescue

The traumas of Syria and Libya have further reinforced this anxiety—to the extent that some Iranian dissidents fear disintegration more than continued authoritarianism.

Every Western statement that appears to question Iran’s territorial integrity deepens that fear, and Tehran eagerly exploits it to portray reformists and protesters as tools of foreign powers.

If the West truly seeks to engage Iran’s people, confronting this psychological reality head-on is essential. The recent EU-GCC statement did the opposite, alienating the very voices the West claims to support.

For all its complexities, Iran remains a nation profoundly open to the world. Most Iranians dream not of isolation but of reintegration—of restoring Iran’s place as a proud, responsible member of the international community.

Its dissidents seek fundamental change to Iran’s rule, not its soul. Most welcome solidarity if it comes with dignity, not domination—and strive for respect, not rescue.

The comments by Mehdi Fazaeli, a political analyst and member of the Office for the Preservation and Publication of the Works of the Supreme Leader, were a rare nod to the idea of dialogue with Tehran's arch-enemy from the theocrat's circle.

He is widely regarded as among the few officials authorized to interpret Khamenei's views.

Talks were ended by a surprise Israeli military campaign on Iran in June capped off by US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. The negotiations have not resumed despite US entreaties as Khamenei led senior officials in accusing Washington of perfidy and aggression.

"Negotiations with the United States are not absolutely forbidden, but are only allowed if they are conditional, closely controlled, and in line with the system’s higher interests," Fazaeli told a diplomacy forum at Baqir al-Ulum University in the holy city of Qom, describing Khamenei's position. "No strategic trust in the United States exists."

"The Supreme Leader does not reject negotiations per se," he added, "but evaluates them based on their purpose and framework. Negotiations that imply retreat are unacceptable, but controlled, intelligent talks aimed at averting threats are permissible."

Despite what he described as deep strategic mistrust, Fazaeli said Khamenei has at times allowed narrow, issue-specific contacts “to safeguard higher national interests,” citing earlier talks on Iraq, Afghanistan and the nuclear issues.

Khamenei, 86, came out strongly against renewing talks with the United States after the June war killed hundreds of military personnel and civilians. Iranian counterattacks had killed 32 Israeli civilians and an off-duty soldier.

"The Americans sometimes say they would like to cooperate with Iran. Cooperation with Iran is not possible as long as the United States continues to support the accursed Zionist regime, maintains military bases, and interferes in the region," he said in a speech earlier this month.

US President Donald Trump said last month that the United States was ready to reach a deal “when Tehran is ready,” saying “the hand of friendship and cooperation is open.”

The United States wants Iran to halt domestic enrichment and rein in its missile program and support for armed allies in the region.

Tehran denies seeking a nuclear weapon citing a religious decree by Khamenei, rejects giving up its nuclear activities and has said discussions on its defense posture are a non-starter.

Fazaeli said Khamenei’s order against nuclear arms “is a ruling that remains fixed and cannot be changed,” adding that it bars “production, stockpiling and use”

The UN nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday it had not been able to check Iran’s enriched uranium stock for five months because Tehran has not allowed inspectors to reach the seven sites bombed in June. It said verification is “long overdue” and that it has lost “continuity of knowledge” of Iran’s nuclear material.

Before the attacks, inspectors had confirmed Iran held about 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote to UN chief António Guterres on Wednesday saying Trump publicly admitted to directing Israel’s initial strikes on Iran, demanding the United Nations extract reparations from Washington.

Abolfazl Shekarchi said the late Revolutionary Guard commander Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, widely regarded as the father of Iran’s ballistic-missile program and killed in a 2011 explosion at an IRGC base west of Tehran, had “carried the wish to see Israel wiped out,” adding: “With God’s help, this wish will be fulfilled.”

He said Iran’s aerospace forces grow “more powerful by the day” and insisted the Islamic Republic becomes stronger when its commanders are killed.

“We never become weak — with every martyr we become more steadfast,” he said.

Other senior commanders used the same gathering to revisit the twelve day June war with Israel. Deputy IRGC chief Ali Fadavi said “all the world stood with Israel but they did not succeed,” adding that Iran had “acted on its duty” during the fighting and that “when duties are carried out, the promises of God are fulfilled.”

Vahid Azizi, head of parliament’s national security committee, said Tehran viewed the conflict as “an opportunity to understand the shortcomings and the needs” and as a chance to “prepare for what may come next.”

Growing signals of a new confrontation

The messaging reflects broader signals in Tehran, where several officials have spoken more openly in recent weeks about the prospect of fresh fighting with Israel. Some have said Iran is ready for “all scenarios” as political and military rhetoric intensifies.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset this week that Iran “remains a threat,” yet was weakened in the June war. He said Israel had “distanced and neutralized the nuclear threat and the ballistic threat alike” and warned that any next clash would be “much more aggressive” and could last far longer than twelve days.