On March 7, 2025, a significant development unfolded in Tehran’s Grand Mosque as Ahmad Khatami, a senior cleric and member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, used his widely-broadcast Friday sermon to denounce renewed negotiations with the United States. Labeling such talks as humiliating, Khatami anchored his message in revolutionary ideology, stressing that Iran’s ‘Ashura nation will not be humiliated.’ This messaging, a familiar refrain within Iran’s clerical establishment, has underpinned decades of official antagonism between the Islamic Republic and Washington—particularly as both sides remain locked in a struggle for influence across the Middle East.
Within weeks, however, reports emerged that indirect talks had begun between Iranian officials and the US administration. Faced with mounting domestic dissatisfaction, international isolation, and the burden of prolonged regional engagements—most notably the costly support of proxies such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon—the Iranian regime recalibrated. Khatami, representing the views of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei from the pulpit, cited Quranic justifications for dialogue, depicting negotiation not as a betrayal, but as a religiously legitimate act. This marked a striking reversal of previously rigid dogma and drew attention to the regime’s willingness to reinterpret doctrine to serve expedient needs.
Such shifts highlight the inherent ideological flexibility that characterizes the upper echelons of Iran’s political apparatus. With accelerating protests tied to economic crises and anger over costly international adventures, leaders increasingly turn to pragmatic measures, including engagement with historic adversaries. The shift also follows years of pressure on Iran’s economic and military infrastructure, exacerbated by sustained sanctions and high-profile losses, such as the U.S. targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020. That Khatami—once a strident opponent of US engagement—was the vehicle for this shift further underscores the regime’s prioritization of its own stability over ideological consistency.
Friday sermons in Tehran are not mere religious gatherings; they serve as instruments of both propaganda and governance. The clerics who deliver these addresses, including Khatami, serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Leader, and their statements reflect high-level strategic priorities. Iran’s capacity for policy reversals from the pulpit sends signals not only to its domestic audience but to foreign governments negotiating with the Islamic Republic. The balancing act requires casting diplomatic flexibility as a Quranic imperative, insulating the regime from accusations of weakness while preparing the ground for possible concessions or agreements.
For Israel, Tehran’s shifting positions confirm concerns regarding the reliability of any Iranian commitments. Israel’s military, led by Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, continues to regard Iran’s theocratic regime as a principal sponsor of regional terrorism. Iranian-backed entities—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and others—have repeatedly targeted Israeli and Western interests. The October 7, 2023 massacre by Hamas, the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust, brought home the dangers of Iran’s regional ambitions and further solidified Israel’s stance that engagement with Tehran must be based on verification and strength, not trust.
The latest rhetorical contortions also have resonance beyond Iran’s borders. Allies and adversaries alike note the ease with which Iranian officials reinterpret religious law and revolutionary doctrine to justify new courses. This has enabled the regime to weather decades of isolation, popular uprisings, and military confrontations while retaining the appearance of unity and purpose.
International observers, including Western states and Arab neighbors, view these developments with caution. US officials, aware of Iran’s history of duplicity and reversals, treat any dialogue as transactional and require rigorous monitoring. Meanwhile, ordinary Iranians remain skeptical, often seeing such policy maneuvers as further evidence of leadership self-interest and a disconnect with public realities.
In sum, the episode involving Ahmad Khatami’s reversed pronouncements illustrates the adaptability and survival instinct that define the Islamic Republic’s highest ranks. While public-facing rhetoric may fluctuate, underlying objectives—primacy, regime security, and regional power—remain consistent. For Israel and its partners confronting Iranian-backed terror, the lesson is to remain vigilant and to interpret diplomatic overtures through the lens of documented behavior rather than aspirational rhetoric.
