TEHRAN—Amid renewed speculation of talks between the United States and Iran, internal Iranian channels and social media have been saturated with a striking image: U.S. President Donald Trump depicted in the uniform of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officer. This powerful symbol has quickly become shorthand for a national debate that reaches far beyond mere diplomatic speculation, raising profound questions about Iran’s future, its tensions with Israel, and the power of the IRGC over regional conflict.
The discussions around potential U.S.-Iran negotiations—recently postponed with no new confirmed date—reflect deeply divergent views within Iranian society and government factions. On one side are voices wary of any opening to America, convinced that Trump’s overture is a tactical ploy meant to pressure the Islamic Republic and weaken its negotiating posture. On the other, some see opportunity, believing that a dealmaker such as Trump could bring about relief from harsh sanctions and provide the regime with a measure of international legitimacy.
This internal disagreement has found concrete expression in Iran’s economy. In the wake of rumors about U.S.-Iran dialogue, the Iranian rial briefly appreciated on informal markets, underscoring the extent to which Iranian citizens and businesses yearn for a break in the economic siege brought on by sanctions and systemic regime corruption. Yet, such movements have historically provided only fleeting relief: the IRGC and Iranian government have long used the prospect of negotiations for strategic advantage while entrenching their grip on power and expanding support for militant proxies abroad.
The diplomatic process itself remains opaque and precarious. Multiple sources report that the anticipated talks, originally scheduled to commence this week, have been pushed back in true Iranian fashion—delays that are familiar to observers of Tehran’s standard diplomatic maneuvering. Such postponements amplify uncertainty but are often employed as a tool to extract concessions or project resilience both to foreign adversaries and internal critics.
The stakes surrounding these talks are underscored by Iran’s ongoing sponsorship of terrorist organizations that target Israel and U.S. interests across the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Israel, bearing the brunt of this destabilizing influence, continues to perceive any concession to Tehran—including direct or indirect negotiations with the United States—as a risk to regional security. This calculation has been made starkly clear following the October 7, 2023 massacre by Hamas, an attack marked by systematic atrocities and abductions, facilitated in part by Iranian strategic direction and IRGC support. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have repeatedly warned that appeasement of Tehran invites further escalation and undermines the safety of Israel’s population.
For the Iranian regime, the conversation is not solely about foreign relations, but about internal legitimacy and the delicate balance of power between civilian politicians, clerics, and the IRGC. Hardline factions portray negotiation as capitulation to Western pressure, while those more pragmatically focused on Iran’s dire economic circumstances argue for engagement as a path toward survival. The widespread circulation of Trump wearing IRGC uniform in digital and print media neatly captures this dynamic: the IRGC remains a central force in both external projection of power and the coercion of internal dissent, as seen in crackdowns on economic protests or against advocates for reform.
These events unfold against a background of long-running antagonism since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The IRGC, conceived to export Iran’s revolutionary ideology, today commands a vast network of regional proxies and perpetrates attacks targeting Israel, expats, and Western targets. The United States’ approach has alternated between engagement and maximum pressure, with President Trump notable for his administration’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and subsequent re-imposition of broad sanctions. Washington’s current posture, revealed through signals in both public and back-channel communications, is one of guarded willingness to reengage, albeit with significant reservations informed by past failures and regional realities.
Within Iran, the ordinary citizen is seldom insulated from these shifting winds. Exchange rates, food and medicine prices, and the daily sense of insecurity shift with each diplomatic rumor. Each pause or delay in negotiations is read instantly into currency markets, only for uncertainty to resume with the next ambiguous message or state pronouncement. Meanwhile, the Iranian leadership continues to oscillate between gestures toward dialogue and hostility, seeking to maintain both internal cohesion and the capability to act abroad.
For Israel, a country facing daily IRGC incitement and its consequences through attacks launched by Iranian-supported groups, the calculus is existential. Israeli defense officials and analysts routinely underscore that dialogue with Tehran, absent firm verification and restrictions on Iran’s malign activity, cannot be allowed to obscure Tehran’s fundamental goal: weakening and, ultimately, eliminating the Jewish state. The October 7th massacre by Hamas, Israel argues, was the latest evidence that threats are not theoretical and that the regime’s proxies act in concert with Iranian objectives.
As the latest round of planned U.S.-Iran negotiations remains in limbo, the Iranian propaganda machine continues to deploy symbols and narratives designed to sway public opinion and signal strength to its adversaries. The discourse in Tehran remains deeply split—between hope for relief and suspicion of betrayal, between economic desperation and revolutionary ideology. For the people of Iran, and especially for the security of Israel and its partners, the outcome of these internal debates and diplomatic maneuvers will echo far beyond negotiating rooms, influencing the direction of conflict and the prospects for peace across the Middle East.
