Iran International
President Masoud Pezeshkian's unusually blunt remarks about Iran's economic crisis have intensified infighting over Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's position on the US-Iran agreement.
The dispute centers on a written message attributed to Khamenei outlining his position on the Memorandum of Understanding.
In the message, Khamenei wrote: "In principle, I had a different view, but because of the commitment that the President, as head of the Supreme National Security Council, gave on behalf of himself and the council members regarding safeguarding the rights of the Iranian nation and the Resistance Front, and because they explicitly accepted responsibility for it, I authorized it."
Hardliners, including parliamentarian Hamid Rasaei and former MP Kamran Ghazanfari, accused Pezeshkian, parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and their allies of effectively staging a "coup" against the Supreme Leader.
'A devastated economy'
The dispute spilled into public view when attendees at an official event shouted that Pezeshkian's government should adhere to the "principles" referenced by Khamenei.
"The principle is justice. The principle is serving the people. The principle is honesty," Pezeshkian responded.
"For 40 to 50 days, we could not export a single barrel of oil from the Persian Gulf," he said. "They have devastated our economy, and many young people have become unemployed. Our young people have no hope for the future. We have to pay benefits to the unemployed and we cannot collect taxes. You tell me, where is the money supposed to come from?"
Pezeshkian also revealed that the government had diverted $20 million in oil-export revenues that would normally have gone into the state budget to the IRGC Aerospace Force to procure military equipment.
"If we had not supported the IRGC, our armed forces would not have been able to fight."
He added that he was withholding further details in the interest of national unity, saying he had much more to say but preferred not to disclose it.
Institutional backing
Pezeshkian's remarks also suggested growing confidence that key power centers continue to back the agreement despite mounting criticism from hardliners.
According to the president, the memorandum was approved by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) with the backing of the country's most senior commanders from both the regular army and the Revolutionary Guards.
Further evidence emerged on Tuesday when Sobh-e Sadegh, the weekly publication of the IRGC's political office, reported that Saeed Jalili—an SNSC member and a longstanding opponent of talks with Washington—had sought to clarify the leader's position.
According to the report, Jalili said Khamenei's statement was not opposition to negotiations but to Tehran's negotiating approach and certain provisions of the memorandum. He reportedly also said those who voted for the agreement in the council could not be accused of acting against the leadership.
His remarks echoed those of IRGC political chief Yadollah Javani, who said on Monday that the negotiations had been conducted with Khamenei's permission and according to the conditions he had set.
"The interpretation by some that the phrase 'in principle' signifies opposition to negotiations with the United States is incorrect," Javani said.
Competing readings
Iranian newspapers have offered sharply different interpretations of the controversy.
The government newspaper Iran argued that the Supreme Leader's message emphasized "responsibility, commitment, effort, and concern" on the part of government officials.
"The Leader's message was about the government's responsibility," it wrote, "but in part of the political sphere it became a tool for intensifying attacks on the government."
The conservative Khorasan newspaper argued that the message sought to balance three principles: maintaining the Islamic Republic's stance toward US hostility, conditionally accepting the outcome of the official decision-making process and demanding accountability from those implementing the memorandum.
It added that, in political and jurisprudential reasoning, the phrase "in principle" refers to a general rule that can admit exceptions under special circumstances.
Not all conservative voices defended the government. In an editorial titled Mr. President, the Enemy Can Hear You Too, the conservative website Alef criticized Pezeshkian for repeatedly discussing Iran's economic difficulties in public.
One reader commented: "Saying that not even a single barrel of oil was exported because of the US blockade, or that all military officials supported the memorandum, does not send a good message to the enemy."
Debate spills onto social media
Social media reflected the same divide. Supporters praised Pezeshkian's candor, while critics renewed accusations that he was attempting to pressure the Supreme Leader into accepting the agreement.
One supporter wrote: "Pezeshkian is completely right. You cannot run a country without money. We have to face reality."
A critic responded on X: "Standing against the Leader and then blaming everything on the Leader and the system is not called courage."
The dispute increasingly appears to be less about the memorandum itself than about who gets to define Khamenei's position. As negotiations with Washington move forward, competing factions are seeking to claim the leader's authority either to legitimize the agreement or to constrain those implementing it.
Tehran’s unveiling of a towering statue depicting the Roman Emperor Valerian kneeling before pre-Islamic Persian King Shapur I has renewed criticism of the Islamic Republic’s appeal to nationalist sentiment following the June war with Israel.
For over forty years, the theocracy purged ancient Persian history from schoolbooks, replacing it with post-Islamic narratives. But after the 12-day conflict with Israel, officials have turned to the distant pre-Islamic past to rally a divided society.
From murals of ancient kings and soldiers to patriotic songs added to Shi’ite mourning ceremonies performed before Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Tehran now embraces imagery once deemed heretical by its own revolutionary ethos.
'Kneel before Iran' campaign
Tehran’s Revolution (Enghelab) Square was the scene of an unusual spectacle on Friday as officials unveiled a massive bronze statue depicting Roman Emperor Valerian kneeling in submission before Sassanid King Shapur I, commemorating Iran’s victory at the Battle of Edessa (260 AD).
The event was held under the slogan “Kneel before Iran,” part of what authorities describe as a campaign to project “national unity and historical pride” following the June war with Israel.
Tehran Mayor Alireza Zakani, a staunch ultraconservative, said on X: “Enmity with Great Iran can only end in kneeling before this historic nation.”
Municipal official Davood Goodarzi said the installation would be accompanied by visual displays depicting “other victories of Iranians over foreign aggressors,” including the defeat of British forces by local commander Rais-Ali Delvari, Mirza Kuchak Khan’s resistance against Russian troops, and Surena’s triumph over Rome at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE.
The goal, Goodarzi said, is “strengthening concepts such as national dignity, social unity, and Iranian identity.”
The statue, he said, would remain temporarily at Revolution Square before being moved to a city gateway “where it will stand as the first emblem of Iran before diplomats and foreign visitors.”
Unveiled women were allowed to attend the unveiling ceremony—an uncommon scene at events organized by Tehran’s ultra-hardline municipality.
The turn to the pre-Islamic past
The sharp reversal also recalls remarks once made by Khamenei. In a 2011 speech, he asserted that “all the great military victories of this nation came after Islam,” dismissing pre-Islamic accounts as “things that are not documented.”
In 1987, he had said that prophets triumphed over kings such as Cyrus and that “nothing remains of these monarchs in history but names remembered with derision.”
Nevertheless, pro-government social media accounts have now gone so far as to circulate posters equating Khamenei himself with Shapur, showing him standing with a staff as Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump kneel before him. The caption reads: “You will kneel before Iran.”
'Hypocrisy'
Pro-government figures have hailed the move as a patriotic success. Conservative political reporter Hossein Saremi posted: “Today’s grand Iranian gathering showed that people and the state share one essence: Iran itself. Nothing can take our homeland away.”
Others, however, called the spectacle “hypocrisy.” Journalist Gholamhossein Pashaei wrote on X: “Every year you close Pasargadae to stop people from celebrating Cyrus Day, yet you unveil Shapur’s statue in Enghelab Square with drums and fireworks during Fatimiyya (mourning period)!”
Dissident commentator Hamid Asafi called the ceremony “a perfect snapshot of the Islamic Republic’s contradictions.”
On Telegram he wrote: “A week ago they closed Cyrus’s tomb out of fear of the crowds, and now they glorify Shapur in the same breath. The Islamic Republic fears living history but poses for selfies with its corpse.”
He added: “They know people no longer respond to rosaries and sermons. That’s why they’ve brought history back to the stage—in a controlled costume. If they can’t erase the past, they’ll try to own it.”
The irony deepened as UNESCO formally recognized Cyrus’s Charter as one of the earliest human-rights documents.
President Masoud Pezeshkian wrote on X: “Iran, the cradle of dialogue, justice, and coexistence, can still inspire peace today.”
Users swiftly replied, questioning how such pride could coexist with a government that blocks access to Cyrus’s tomb each year to those wishing to visit it on his birthday.