TEHRAN—In a calculated bid to project national unity and maintain regime stability, Iran’s government has launched a concerted campaign to rally its political, clerical, and institutional elites around renewed negotiations with the United States. This carefully coordinated effort comes against a backdrop of deepening economic hardship, intensifying international sanctions, and Iran’s ongoing confrontation with Israel and Western powers.
The public comments of Mohammad Saleh Jokar, a member of Iran’s Majles (parliament), have brought to light Tehran’s strategy to suppress all criticism of renewed talks with the United States. Addressing the chamber, Jokar insisted, “It is forbidden to criticize the regime’s decision to conduct negotiations.” According to Jokar, the decision has already produced two productive rounds of dialogue, justifying strict regime discipline. Any deviation from official policy is now depicted as risking national unity.
This position is echoed across Iranian state institutions. Under reported instructions, most public figures—from parliamentarians and influential clerics to senior bureaucrats—are projecting a unified message framing the negotiations as both necessary and calculated. The government, while carefully avoiding any impression of weakness, has moved decisively to present all dissent as either irresponsible rejectionism or naïve appeasement. This approach seeks to neutralize both the hardline voices who view any dialogue with the United States as betrayal, and reformists who see talks as a cure-all for the Islamic Republic’s woes.
Historically, US-Iranian relations have been fraught with suspicion and animosity since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequent US embassy hostage crisis. These entrenched hostilities have shaped both the Iranian populace and its ruling elite, with anti-Americanism a mainstay of the regime’s ideology. However, the mounting pressure from economic mismanagement, endemic corruption, and sweeping US-led sanctions—in particular those imposed by the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign—has reduced Iran’s options, making engagement, at least tactically, more attractive to the leadership.
Jokar’s reference to “two positive rounds of talks” likely points to back-channel discussions moderated by third-party states such as Oman or Qatar, as both sides probe the possibility of progress on Iran’s nuclear program. Nevertheless, all such talks remain under strict supervision by the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has signaled conditional acceptance of limited engagement, provided regime interests and regional influence are not compromised.
The positioning of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) within this narrative is critical. As both an enforcer of internal loyalty and a coordinator of Iran’s broader “Axis of Resistance”—which includes Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen—the IRGC ensures that negotiations do not threaten Iran’s primary strategic objective: regional power projection and the persistent campaign against Israel. Despite presenting a façade of moderation to Western interlocutors, Iran’s actions on the ground—including the continued development of missile and drone capabilities—reinforce Israel’s core concern that negotiations are a tactical maneuver, not a credible shift in behavior.
Economic hardship remains at the forefront of public consciousness in Iran. Years of multilateral sanctions, compounded by domestic policy failures, have led to rising unemployment, inflation, and shortages of essential goods. While official rhetoric claims negotiations are undertaken from a position of strength, ordinary citizens see them as a last, if limited, hope for relief from mounting pressures. The regime’s effort to constrict dissent within official channels, and suppress open protest, reveals just how tenuous Iran’s domestic stability has become.
For Israel, the specter of Iranian rapprochement with the West is received with deep skepticism. Israeli security doctrine, under Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, emphasizes vigilance and preparedness in the face of continued Iranian support for terror—best exemplified in Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre and ongoing proxy attacks across the region. As Israel defends its population and sovereignty, it regards any diplomatic overture not accompanied by substantive Iranian policy change as, at best, a stalling tactic. Israeli and US intelligence continue to monitor for nuclear violations and to counter the Iranian terror apparatus that threatens regional stability.
From Washington, the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal and subsequent policy have underscored that only verifiable, enduring constraints on Iran’s nuclear pursuits and terror activity will justify any easing of pressure. The regime’s current campaign is therefore interpreted as an attempt to relieve sanctions and restore economic viability without relinquishing key elements of its national and regional agenda.
In conclusion, the regime’s command for political and religious unity over negotiating with the United States underscores both its internal challenges and enduring external ambitions. The dual strategy—presenting openness abroad while forcibly suppressing dissent at home—reflects the ongoing struggle for Iran’s future course. Until Iran fundamentally changes its support for terrorism and ceases its destabilizing military actions, Israeli and international skepticism regarding Tehran’s intentions is likely to persist.
