No breakthrough yet, but Iranians are betting on one

In the letter sent on Sunday, Pezeshkian stressed that the president and the government have effectively been excluded from major and vital decision-making processes in the country, and that the vacuum created by this situation has enabled hardline factions within the IRGC to take control of affairs, the source said.

Pezeshkian added that under such circumstances he is unable to run the government and carry out his legal responsibilities, and for that reason has requested to step down immediately.

It is not yet clear whether Mojtaba Khamenei will accept the president's resignation, but the contents of the letter point to a deep and unprecedented rift at the highest levels of power.

This comes after months of tensions between the government and the Islamic Republic’s military-security institutions. Iran International previously reported that the IRGC had gradually restricted many presidential powers and effectively taken control of key parts of the government.

According to informed sources, the situation has left Pezeshkian’s administration trapped in a political and executive deadlock, preventing diplomatic negotiations from moving forward and the completion and implementation of desired changes to the cabinet structure.

A video from inside the cafe on Tehran’s Valiasr Street was also released, which appeared to show men and women seated around tables during a live music performance.

In the footage, some audience members could be seen clapping, filming with phones and moving their heads to the music as a performer performed near a microphone and music stand.

The report said Tehran’s public venues police acted after receiving reports about the cafe’s activities.

Authorities accused the cafe of holding Western music events and providing a setting for what officers described as “deviant sects,” involving young men and women.

They also said customers at the cafe had been seen making “strange and unusual movements.”

In May 2024, police arrested over 260 people at an underground rock music festival, branding the event a “satanist gathering.”

• 

  Iran Labels Rock Music Fans Satan Worshippers in Mass Arrest

The backlash began after Rasaei shared a post titled "Who is Qualified for Leadership?" on his Telegram channel on Thursday. Many observers interpreted the post as a veiled reference to Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran's new Supreme Leader.

In the post, Rasaei highlighted a verse from Surah Hud containing God's direct response to Noah regarding his drowned son. In the verse, God states that the son is not truly part of Noah’s family due to his disbelief and unrighteous conduct, warning Noah against questioning divine matters beyond his knowledge.

Because this religious story is widely known among Iranians, the idiom “Noah’s son” is frequently used in Iranian culture to describe a wicked or rebellious child who falls into bad company despite having pious parents.

Allegations of disrespecting the Leader

Some media outlets, several political figures from various factions, and many social media users said that in this post, he had implicitly characterized Mojtaba Khamenei as an unrighteous, wayward son of his father.

"What is the relevance of bringing up the issue of leadership under the current circumstances—when the late martyr-leader's righteous son has succeeded him, and especially at a time when enemies are manufacturing rumors about this every single day—and then referencing the verse about Noah’s son? What on earth was Rasaei’s motive for spinning such a ridiculous, convoluted narrative?,” Asr-e Iran website wrote.

Ruhollah Jomei, a journalist and official under the Rouhani administration, suggested that Rasaei’s post effectively revealed plans by Saeed Jalili's camp and the Paydari Front to undermine Mojtaba Khamenei's leadership.

Mohammad-Hossein Chavoshi, a conservative political activist, also wrote in a post: "What is the meaning of Mr. Rasaei’s message? No matter how we look at it, it leaves a bad impression," and he demanded accountability from him.

Attacking Ghalibaf despite Khamenei's praise

Rasaei’s post was notably published on the exact same day that Mojtaba Khamenei issued a written message to Parliament. In his statement, Khamenei expressed appreciation for Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf’s leadership, while emphasizing the need to avoid factional disputes and maintain national unity.

“Why did he post the note right after the Leader’s message thanking Ghalibaf?” one social media user questioned.

Ghalibaf, recently appointed as the head of Iran's nuclear negotiating team, is widely considered to be Khamenei's right-hand man. Nevertheless, Rasaei—who remains fiercely critical of the parliament speaker—warned him in a separate Saturday post against "repeating the mistakes" of Hassan Rouhani and Mohammad-Javad Zarif by relying on nuclear diplomacy and "pinning hopes on talks."

Who is Hamid Rasaei?

Hamid Rasaei was one of the key members of the Paydari (Steadfastness) Front, but by his own account—left the party because of differences with other members of the party's central council over a decade ago.

By his own admission, however, he feels a strong ideological closeness to the hardline party.

The Paydari Party and like-minded groups, often referred to as “super-revolutionaries”, are vehemently opposed to any negotiation or compromise with the United States, viewing it as a betrayal of the 'ideals of the Islamic Revolution' as well as the viewpoints of Ali Khamenei.

Rasaei’s defense

Rasaei defended himself by publishing another note, saying he had simply reshared an older piece of his writing and that it was published several hours before Mojtaba Khamenei’s message.

He insisted that he was among the very first to vouch for Mojtaba’s personal qualifications for leadership, even introducing him as a suitable option for leadership two days after the news of Ali Khamenei's killing was announced.

Mehdi Ghasemzadeh, a social media activist, wrote that based on the Leader's recommendation, it might be better to accept Rasaei's explanations and avoid fueling disputes.

However, he noted that if someone from another political group had written such a note, it would have triggered protests by Rasaei's like-minded allies at nightly gatherings of government supporters.

That debate is becoming increasingly urgent as Washington and Tehran move closer to a potential agreement that could extend the current ceasefire and launch a new phase of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

President Donald Trump has suggested a deal may be within reach, while officials on both sides have signaled progress despite major unresolved disputes.

For supporters of the military campaign, the logic is straightforward: Iran entered the talks weaker than it has been in years. For critics, the concern is that diplomacy could give Tehran breathing room just as years of economic pressure, domestic unrest and military setbacks had left it vulnerable.

Speaking to Eye for Iran, former US Treasury official Miad Maleki and national security expert Thomas Juneau offered different answers to the same question: what exactly did the war achieve?

A Regime under pressure

While the two experts differ on what should happen next, both agree that the Islamic Republic emerged from the conflict significantly weakened.

"They've never been so weak. They've never been so vulnerable that they are today, militarily, politically, economically," Maleki said.

The Islamic Republic, he argued, faces mounting economic pressure at home while struggling to maintain the image of strength it has projected for decades. Tehran’s military infrastructure has suffered significant damage, senior figures have been killed, and the economy was already under strain before the conflict began.

Juneau reached a similar conclusion, though from a different angle.

"The regime was clobbered," he said.

Beyond the military and economic damage, Juneau argued that one of Tehran’s core strategic assumptions collapsed during the conflict.

For decades, Iran invested heavily in Hezbollah, Hamas and other regional allies as part of what officials often described as a forward defense strategy. The idea was that any direct attack on Iran would trigger retaliation across the region, deterring adversaries from striking the country itself.

"That failed," Juneau said.

Maleki argues that the regime's losses go beyond military hardware.

The conflict exposed weaknesses in Iran’s air defenses, damaged key infrastructure and further strained a system already struggling with economic collapse, inflation and public discontent. In his view, Tehran entered negotiations not from a position of strength, but because it had few alternatives.

Victory, leverage or lifeline?

Where the two experts diverge is over what happens next.

For Maleki, the central question is why negotiations are taking place now, at a moment when many observers believe the Islamic Republic is under greater pressure than at any point in recent years.

He pointed to growing frustration among some Iranians who believe the conflict exposed vulnerabilities that could have accelerated political change.

"There's some level of disappointment that the fact that the US is negotiating with this regime is bad for the future of a free Iran," he said.

The concern is not that Iran emerged stronger from the war. Rather, it is that Tehran survived a period of extraordinary pressure and may now receive economic or diplomatic relief before those pressures fully take effect.

Juneau sees a different risk.

While acknowledging that the regime has been weakened, he argues that ordinary Iranians may ultimately bear the greatest cost.

"The Iranian people have been thrown under the bus," he said.

The economy, already battered by sanctions, corruption and years of mismanagement, now faces the additional burden of reconstruction. At the same time, Juneau warns that a weakened regime does not necessarily become a more moderate one.

In fact, he believes future protests could face even harsher repression than previous waves of unrest.

"This is a regime now that will have even less tolerance for any kind of popular protests in the future," he said.

The disagreement reflects a broader uncertainty surrounding the talks themselves.

If the objective of the war was to weaken the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities, there is broad agreement that it succeeded. Iran’s regional posture has been damaged, key infrastructure has been hit and some of its most senior figures are gone.

But if the objective was to fundamentally alter Tehran’s behavior, improve conditions for ordinary Iranians or create a pathway toward meaningful political change, the answer remains far less clear.

Maleki believes the conflict became unavoidable as Iran expanded its missile, drone and regional capabilities.

"The conflict was unavoidable. It was coming sooner or later," he said.

Juneau is more cautious.

Asked whether the war was ultimately worth it, he declined to offer a simple yes-or-no answer.

"The negative implications of the war outweigh the positive implications," he said.

That may ultimately be the central dilemma facing policymakers in Washington and the region.

The war weakened the Islamic Republic. Few dispute that.

The unanswered question is whether the diplomacy now taking shape will build on that weakness or alleviate it.

Despite Tehran’s firm demands for the immediate and unconditional release of $12 billion in cash upon the signing of an initial Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United States, Qatari officials rejected the request, agreeing to release only half of the amount under strict limitations, the source said.

According to a source close to a Qatari official involved in the discussions, Doha refused to transfer the funds directly or in cash to Iran. Instead, the money will only be made available as credit for Tehran to purchase essential goods and products directly from Qatar.

The restriction comes amid strong US opposition to granting Iran direct, unrestricted access to liquid financial assets.

Washington raised concerns that direct cash injections would provide the Iranian government with vital economic breathing room, allowing it to pay delayed public salaries and procure military equipment or other goods from foreign countries during a time of intense regional strain.

Iran International previously reported that Tehran had set the unrestricted release of the $12 billion held in Qatar as a strict, non-negotiable precondition before it would advance any preliminary diplomatic understanding or sign the proposed framework agreement.

While Speaker Ghalibaf explicitly requested liquid financial assistance to ease Iran's severe domestic economic pressures, Qatar’s counteroffer effectively bars Iran from using the capital at its own discretion in a blow to Tehran’s strategy in US talks.

Rather than gaining direct access to the cash, Tehran is now forced to spend the capped credit line solely within the Qatari market for essential commodities.

To prevent the dispute from derailing the broader, highly sensitive framework talks with the United States, which aim to secure a regional ceasefire and reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz, all participating parties have reportedly agreed to keep the details of this financial disagreement strictly confidential.