Iran's leadership is attempting to frame an emerging memorandum of understanding with the US as a victory, despite facing internal dissent and significant economic pressure. Senior officials, including Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and President Masoud Pezeshkian, have publicly described the understanding as a substantial achievement and a potential turning point for the country and the region.
The official narrative posits that the agreement thwarts key objectives of the US and Israel, such as forcing Iran's surrender, removing its government, or halting its nuclear program through military means. Tehran argues that it has maintained its links to groups like Hezbollah and is still engaged in negotiations, with discussions including sanctions relief and the inclusion of Lebanon within the framework.
However, this official line is contested within Iran. Some hard-line Members of Parliament have reportedly criticized the draft deal, with one accusing negotiators of ignoring directives regarding the Strait of Hormuz. These criticisms, originating from within the system, highlight a division in the political landscape.
Economic factors are central to the calculation behind pursuing the agreement. Years of sanctions, reduced access to oil markets, and high inflation have severely impacted ordinary Iranians. For many, the success of the deal will be measured by its ability to lower prices and reduce the fear of further conflict, rather than by official slogans.
US Vice-President JD Vance has indicated that while Iran will not receive taxpayer money, it could gain access to billions of dollars if it fulfills its commitments and sanctions are eased. This allows Tehran to present the deal as a pathway to investment and reconstruction.
Significant challenges and uncertainties remain. The full details of the memorandum have not been published, and crucial issues such as Iran's enriched uranium, enrichment levels, verification, sanctions relief, and the Strait of Hormuz are yet to be discussed in upcoming talks scheduled to begin in Switzerland. Furthermore, Israel's stance, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejecting reports of withdrawal from southern Lebanon, introduces fragility. Visible friction between Washington and Israel is useful for Tehran's narrative but also poses a risk if Iran feels compelled to respond to continued Israeli operations.