Tehran selling deal with US as victory – but for Iranians it was necessity

15 hours agoShareSaveAdd as preferred on Google Amir AzimiSenior News Editor – Persian Service Reuters Iran's leadership is trying to present its emerging memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US not as a retreat, but as the result of resistance and victory. That is not an easy argument to make. The country has just gone through a damaging war, the economy is under severe pressure, and parts of the Islamic Republic's own support base have spent months denouncing any compromise with Washington. There are also Iranians, both inside the country and abroad, who crisis not as a moment for diplomacy, but as an opportunity for regime change. This is the divided political landscape in which Tehran is now trying to sell the deal. Senior Iranian officials have framed the deal as a win. Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the Speaker of parliament and the leading Iranian figure in the talks, said Iran had taken "a long step towards final victory". President Masoud Pezeshkian has described the understanding as potentially transformative, saying that if fully implemented it could resolve many of Iran's problems and create "a different world" in Iran and the Middle East. Qalibaf's role is significant because he is not identified with Pezeshkian's moderate camp; his public support suggests the deal has backing from more powerful parts of the system even within Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards. The leadership is also presenting the agreement as a victory because, in Tehran's argument, the US and Israel failed to achieve their main objectives. They did not force Iran into surrender, did not remove the Islamic Republic from power, did not end Iran's nuclear programme through military action, and did not break Iran's links to Hezbollah. Instead, Iran is still at the negotiating table, with Lebanon included in the framework and sanctions relief being discussed. But this official narrative is contested inside Iran. One hard-line MP, the deputy chair of parliament's National Security Committee, has reportedly described the draft deal as a document that would turn Iran into an American colony. He also accused negotiators of ignoring the supreme leader's directive not to re-open the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. That criticism matters because it does not come from outside the system. It comes from within one of the institutions meant to oversee national security. For months, hard-line voices in parliament, state-aligned media and nightly pro-government gatherings have argued that the US cannot be trusted. They point to the fact that diplomacy was still taking place shortly before the war began, and say the Trump administration used negotiations as cover while Israel and the US prepared military action.