Hope meets caution as Tehran weighs economic impact of US deal

As Iran twice came from behind to draw 2-2 at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, fans cheered different goals for different reasons. Some celebrated every Iranian attack. Others openly rooted against a team they view as inseparable from the Islamic Republic.

The divided reactions reflected a question that has become increasingly fraught since January 8-9, 2026, when the Islamic Republic launched a nationwide crackdown on anti-regime protesters that killed tens of thousands of unarmed civilians: can one support Team Melli without supporting the state it represents?

The trauma of those events continues to reverberate far beyond Iran's borders.

At SoFi Stadium, one fan wore a custom jersey marked "8-9," a reference instantly recognizable to many Iranians as the dates of the deadliest two nights in Iran's modern history.

"I felt proud to be Iranian, but with a mixed bag of emotions, carrying the weight of everything that the regime has done and what the people have suffered," actress and activist Nazanin Nour told Iran International.

Nour said she ultimately decided to attend the game despite her conflicted feelings because the regime has taken so much from Iranians worldwide, and she did not want it to deprive her of the joy of the sport as well.

"I think everybody's feelings are informed by their pain and trauma and everything that we've witnessed over the last not just few months but 47 years," she said. "It makes sense that everybody feels like this is a really weird time but still a time to be proud of who we are and where we come from."

100%

A team added

Since the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests, players have faced scrutiny over whether they sing the national anthem, meet state officials or publicly support protesters.

Supporters and critics alike increasingly view the national team through a political lens because it officially represents the Islamic Republic.

While some players and football federation officials have shown alignment with the state, others have faced pressure for expressing solidarity with anti-government protests or refusing to sing the national anthem.

Former Iranian national team goalkeeper and coach Mohammad Rashid Mazaheri has been held by Iranian authorities since late February 2026 after criticizing the leader in an Instagram post.

For many Iranians, his case is another reminder of how even prominent athletes can face severe repercussions—even death—for expressing dissent.

"We're a world away from past World Cups, when, regardless of politics, Iranians inside the country and across the diaspora were united behind Team Melli," said Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute.

That unity was perhaps best illustrated in 1998, when Iran's victory over the United States sparked celebrations from Tehran to Los Angeles.

Pride and protest

Before kickoff, hundreds of protesters gathered outside SoFi Stadium waving anti-government signs and the pre-revolution Lion and Sun flag in a city home to one of the world's largest Iranian diasporas.

Despite FIFA's ban on the Lion and Sun flag, videos circulating online showed numerous fans displaying it inside the stadium.

Among those in attendance was activist Mersedeh Shahinkar, who was blinded in one eye after being shot directly in the eye by security forces during the 2022 protests. Shahinkar, who later fled Iran and now lives in the United States, arrived carrying a Lion and Sun flag.

Shahinkar confronted supporters of the Islamic Republic both inside and outside the stadium, where tensions at times spilled into verbal confrontations and some spectators called fans carrying Iran’s current flag "terrorists."

At times, Shahinkar pointed to the empty eye socket left after she was shot during the 2022 protests, a reminder of the price many Iranians have paid in opposing the state.

100%

Iranian-American news anchor Shally Zomorodi later posted a video to Instagram with tears in her eyes, saying two men confronted her husband over his Lion and Sun logo.

"The hardest part of tonight," she wrote. "Two Iranian men saw my husband with the Lion Sun logo on his shirt and started cursing at him and tried to start a fight with Bruce."

But the atmosphere was not uniformly hostile, said Nour, who witnessed fans carrying Lion and Sun flags sitting near supporters displaying Iran’s official flag.

"I just saw people enjoying a game and being respectful of each other's opinions," she said.

Inside the stadium, boos rang out during the national anthem while many fans appeared to cheer individual players rather than the state they represent.

After the match, Iranian goalscorer Ramin Rezaeian pushed back when asked by a US journalist about fans whistling and booing during the national anthem.

"That's none of your business," he said. "What happens between Iranians is our own matter, and we will resolve it ourselves."

The same arguments played out far from California.

In North Vancouver, home to a large Iranian Canadian community, some crowds—even those displaying Iran's pre-revolutionary flag—erupted in cheers when Iran scored against New Zealand.

A sign of just how complicated the issue can be.

"We're here for the players only," Zina Monjazeb of Los Angeles told Reuters. "We're not here supporting the regime, at all."

Others rejected that distinction entirely.

"We believe that this is not the Iranian team. This is the Islamic regime," Naderi Alizadeh, 39, of San Diego, told Reuters.

In one scene captured on social media, Iranian player Mehdi Taremi is seen handing his shirt to a fan displaying the Lion and Sun flag.

For some Iranians, Team Melli remains a source of national pride distinct from the state it represents. For others, the jersey has become inseparable from the government behind it.

Ninety minutes of football did not resolve the argument. But for one night, it revealed just how deeply it now runs.

The MoU is expected to be formally signed on Friday and followed by 60 days of talks aimed at reaching a final deal, leaving many Iranians torn between relief over the end of fighting, hope for sanctions relief, anger over years of delay, and distrust of both Tehran and Washington.

Regime supporters say Iran forced concessions

Some government supporters argued that Iran emerged from the conflict without losing territory and succeeded in compelling its adversaries to accept its demands through resistance.

A review of public comments posted in response to a Khabar Online survey on reactions to the end of the war showed both pride and anger among users.

One user wrote that they were “very happy” about the end of the war while also feeling “a sense of pride.”

That view was quickly challenged by others. Responding to the comment, another user wrote: “Exactly what is there to be proud of? The destruction of military and technical infrastructure? Crushing inflation that is breaking people's backs? Or the fact that countries in the region are no longer willing to maintain relations with Iran? What pride are you talking about?”

Another user was even more critical, writing: “They struck our leader and senior officials. Several layers of leadership were hit from top to bottom. Our skies had become a thoroughfare for Israel and the United States. I am not proud of this situation.”

Relief mixed with anxiety

Many users said they welcomed the end of the fighting but remained pessimistic about the future or fearful that war could erupt again.

Responding to Khabar Online, one user wrote: “I am happy the war is over, but I do not have an encouraging outlook for the future.”

The user added that prospects would remain bleak as long as some groups could freely gather in the streets under the protection of security forces and express their views, while criticism of government policies by others was treated as opposition to the entire political system and met with “insults, reprimands, prison, and torture.”

Another user described their feelings as “a measure of calm accompanied by anxiety about another war in the future.”

Some users expressed hopes that a final agreement and the lifting of sanctions could improve living conditions.

Dorna Afshinfar wrote on X: “If a final agreement is reached and sanctions are lifted, what changes do you expect to see? I expect dramatic falls in the prices of essential goods such as rice, meat, chicken, dairy products, and fruit; sharp declines in housing, dollar, and gold prices; medicines and healthcare becoming much cheaper; the arrival of new airplanes, buses, and ships; and lower ticket prices for all of them.”

Critics say the deal came too late

A recurring theme among users was criticism of the government for resisting negotiations with Washington for years before eventually returning to the negotiating table after a costly conflict.

One user named Mojtaba wrote on X: “After all this war and misery, we are back to nuclear negotiations again. My God, what sin did we commit that negotiations never leave us Iranians alone?”

He added: “If you were going to make all these concessions, you should have accepted them from the beginning and not let people be crushed under the burden of inflation.”

The same user accused officials of ruining lives through years of insistence on the nuclear issue, writing: “You destroyed people's lives through all these years of absurd insistence on nuclear energy. Now you have accepted it. You should have made a rational decision from the start. I feel bitter that my past, present, and lost youth have been wasted.”

Another user wrote: “What do we feel? We feel inflation, helplessness, and a lost future. Why did you choose this path from the beginning, create all this damage, and then return to where you started? Why all these costs and wasted opportunities?”

Opposition lashes out at Trump

Many opponents of the Islamic Republic reacted angrily to Washington's decision to reach an agreement with Tehran, saying they felt abandoned by President Donald Trump and his administration.

One user wrote on X: “Shame on Trump for making a deal with the killers of 50,000 martyrs.”

Another user, referring to reports that Trump prevented Israel from targeting Ali Khamenei during the 12-day war in 2025, said: “This agreement is a betrayal of the Iranian people. They told us not to come out into the streets until the right time arrived, but it never came. Why did they not allow Khamenei to be targeted during the 12-day war? There are many other questions that I know will never be answered. They played with our blood.”

Yet another user wrote: “Forty thousand martyrs are the light that guides us, and avenging them remains our goal. Whether America wants it or not, whether it makes a deal or not, what matters is what the people of Iran want.”

Others insisted that the opposition movement would continue regardless of diplomatic developments.

“One way or another, they will reach an agreement and remain in power, but we will still be here. We will confront them in the streets. We swear by the blood of the slain that we will not go back,” one user wrote on X.

Another added: “Despite this agreement, I have never been more certain that this regime will fall. We have a king, and we will stand by our king and our flag until the end. We will reclaim Iran ourselves.”

Hardliners reject negotiations

Hardline government supporters who oppose any negotiations with the United States and believe the conflict should continue until the defeat of the United States and Israel also expressed anger at the agreement.

In recent days, hardline demonstrators have chanted slogans such as “Death to the compromisers,” “What happened to the blood of the martyred Leader?” and “We do not accept the agreement.” They have also launched a campaign under the slogan “We Do Not Accept” in an effort to halt the deal.

Videos and posts circulating on social media appeared to show security forces trying to prevent some of these gatherings and, in some cases, using force against demonstrators in Tehran and Mashhad. Iran International could not independently verify the footage or the circumstances.

Among the posts shared on X was one by Mohammad-Taher Rahimi, who wrote: “May the hand be cut off of anyone who shakes hands with the killers of the martyred Imam and poses for a commemorative photograph with them.”

A hardline user named Mehrdad wrote: “After the enemy gains access to uranium, we will enter a difficult existential war. Do not forget that Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian paved the way for this conflict.”

Another user, Hessam Mahmoudi, argued that Iran's uranium stockpile was a key deterrent. “The enemy needed to destroy missile cities with tactical nuclear bombs to force Iran's surrender. The only thing stopping them was uranium. If we give up our uranium stockpile or destroy it, next time they will do something unprecedented to us.”

A user posting under the name Bi Behnam on X wrote: “Let me be very clear. Trump's primary and ultimate goal in accepting this agreement is to remove Iran's uranium reserves. After that, the rest of the path will not be difficult for him. The moment the reserves are handed over or diluted, they will come down on Iran in a way that will become a lesson for history.”

The public anger from some regime supporters has exposed real divisions within Iran’s political and media establishment. But those divisions appear to be less about whether to preserve the Islamic Republic than about how best to preserve it.

That is the assessment of several Iran experts who spoke to Iran International following the announcement of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding.

Hardliners protest the deal

Much of the dissent appears to be coming from the hardline Paydari Front, which sees itself as a guardian of the values of the 1979 revolution that established the Islamic Republic. The faction has long opposed engagement with the West and advocates a more ideological vision of the state rooted in Shia Islamist principles.

Ahead of the signing of the MoU, prominent hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian warned that accepting the agreement would effectively turn Iran into “a colony of the United States.” He also criticized provisions related to the Strait of Hormuz, arguing they would amount to surrendering one of Iran’s most important strategic levers.

The rhetoric spilled into the streets. At rallies in Tehran over the weekend, protesters called for the resignations of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Some invoked the memory of the late Supreme Leader, chanting: “Ghalibaf, Araghchi — what about my Leader’s blood?”

Some went even further, calling for their death and execution.

Opponents of the deal have also launched a “we will not accept” campaign.

The question now is whether these internal fractures could eventually weaken a system that, while more resilient than many anticipated, remains under significant strain. For now, experts say the divisions do not appear sufficient to break the system from within.

“The hardliners are loud, but they have a weak case to make,” said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

“This regime has now proven beyond doubt that they’re much more entrenched and resilient than people thought they were. That doesn’t make them nice, just makes them harder adversaries.”

Survival over ideology

Arash Azizi, an Iran analyst and author of What Iranians Want: Women, Life, Freedom, argues that the Islamic Republic is shifting from ideological hardliners toward a more pragmatic — though still authoritarian — collective leadership focused on regime survival.

“They are authoritarian and they’re thugs, to be clear. But they care about keeping their own economic interests, which means social peace as much as they can, and which means deals with the US,” Azizi told Iran International.

In other words, the Islamic Republic is not moderating. It is acting pragmatically — and, as Azizi argues, cynically — to survive.

According to Azizi, the hardliners around Saeed Jalili are important precisely because they have revealed their weakness. They loudly opposed the deal but appear unable to stop it.

Real power, he argues, lies with a collective leadership centered around Ghalibaf, the IRGC leadership and the Supreme National Security Council. That leadership appears to view a deal with Washington as necessary to protect the system.

The deal’s progress, despite Mojtaba Khamenei’s continued absence from public view, has fueled speculation that a new power structure may be consolidating inside the Islamic Republic.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, notes that such divisions are not new.

Similar opposition emerged during the 2013–2015 negotiations that led to the JCPOA, when hardliners attacked then-President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

“The Supreme Leader made a decision, and that’s going to carry the day,” Brodsky said.

But Brodsky argues the real struggle may begin if sanctions relief materializes.

“There will be those who want to use resources toward economic rebuilding, but there will be a very hardened IRGC contingent ... who are going to want to rebuild their military, rebuild the nuclear program, and rebuild the terror apparatus.”

Media split reflects political divide

Iran’s media landscape reflects the same tensions.

Hardline newspaper Kayhan has denounced the MoU as surrender to the United States. Khorasan has framed it as a temporary pause rather than peace. Hamshahri has argued that diplomacy was made possible by Iran’s military deterrence.

Meanwhile, reformist and moderate outlets such as Shargh, Etemad and Khabar Online have presented the agreement as a state-backed effort to end the war, ease economic pressure and stabilize the country.

Some supporters of the deal have gone further, arguing that the agreement is superior to the 2015 nuclear accord because Iran has retained strategic leverage, including influence over the Strait of Hormuz.

Government supporters have also pushed back against the Paydari Front, arguing it does not represent ordinary Iranians, many of whom have grown weary of war and economic hardship.

Taken together, the reactions suggest that few inside Iran view the MoU as a peace agreement.

Instead, supporters and critics alike largely see it as a mechanism for preserving the Islamic Republic, though they disagree sharply on what kind of compromise would best serve that goal.

For hardliners, the agreement risks being remembered as a retreat from revolutionary principles. For pragmatists inside the establishment, it is a necessary concession aimed at keeping the system intact.

The domestic battle over the MoU may ultimately prove just as consequential as the negotiations themselves.

Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not yet commented on the announcement. President Masoud Pezeshkian, however, welcomed the development in a post on X, saying that if all provisions of the memorandum are implemented correctly, it could become "a source of pride for the country."

Pezeshkian said that an overwhelming majority of members of Iran's Supreme National Security Council had approved the text so that "America's genuine commitment to respecting the rights of the Iranian nation could be tested in practice."

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also served as Iran's chief negotiator, struck a triumphant tone. In a message posted on X, he wrote that despite efforts by those who sought "to destroy the Iranian nation and force the country into submission, Iran had taken a major step toward final victory."

He added: "They wanted to, but they could not."

Judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei also praised the outcome, saying the Islamic Republic had demonstrated "dignified and revolutionary diplomacy."

The announcement had an immediate impact on Iran's financial markets. The value of the US dollar and other foreign currencies, as well as digital assets such as Tether and gold prices, dropped following the news. Tehran's stock market also reacted positively when trading resumed on Monday.

Lawmakers split over agreement

Some members of parliament welcomed the reported memorandum.

Rouhollah Lak-Aliabadi told the conservative Tabnak news website that one of the memorandum's positive aspects was that “contrary to Washington's initial demands, there is no discussion of limiting the country's missile capabilities." He claimed that even American officials now speak of continued uranium enrichment "within specified frameworks."

"This shows that the Islamic Republic's military strength has been able to influence the course of negotiations," he said.

Hossein Samsami, a member of parliament affiliated with the hardline Paydari Front, argued that nuclear and regional negotiations are not permissible and that any future talks should serve only to buy time so that the country's deterrence capabilities can be strengthened.

In a post on X, he wrote that he follows the Supreme Leader's directives, but that his expert assessment differs.

This position was criticized by Lak-Aliabadi, who told Tabnak: "For someone to declare that even if the Leader supports a decision, he will still oppose it, is fundamentally unacceptable."

Hardline lawmaker Amirhossein Sabeti described the agreement as "hasty and weak," claiming it violated the Supreme Leader's red lines and reflected a "miscalculation" by officials.

According to Sabeti, "This agreement reflects the capabilities and understanding of the country's senior officials under current circumstances, not the satisfaction of the Supreme Leader." He further argued that the deal "will neither bring economic relief nor guarantee the country's security."

Mahmoud Nabavian, another hardline parliamentarian associated with the Paydari Front, called on authorities to provide the public with a detailed report on implementation of the memorandum, including provisions concerning the lifting of maritime restrictions, oil and petrochemical exports, banking and insurance services, and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

The hardline Raja News website criticized what it called an agreement with "the killer of the Leader," referring to US President Donald Trump, and questioned the lack of publicly available details regarding Iran's commitments under the memorandum.

Controversies over timing

Some hardliners also objected to the timing of the announcement. Because the news broke after midnight in Iran, while it was still June 14 in Washington — Trump's birthday — critics portrayed it as a symbolic gift to the US president.

Conservative journalist Parisa Nasr wrote: "Couldn't they have waited a few more hours until June 14 had passed in Washington before trumpeting the Iran-US peace agreement? Was giving a birthday gift to the killer of the martyred Leader also one of the unwritten conditions of the deal?"

Ahmad Qadiri, a hardline activist and researcher of international law, argued that Iran had obtained only promises while "what Trump has gained immediately is Iran's loss of credibility among the resistance front, lower oil prices, and having the agreement announced on his birthday."

Reformists and moderates welcome move

Several prominent reformist and centrist figures endorsed the reported agreement.

Former president Mohammad Khatami and former foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif, who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear agreement, both expressed support. In a statement, Khatami described acceptance of the memorandum as "a major and courageous step" and said that it was something "to be genuinely pleased about."

Reformist journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi offered a more measured assessment. Writing on his Telegram channel, he argued that the memorandum represented neither the surrender of one side nor the complete victory of the other.

"It is, like every other phenomenon, the ultimate result of the balance of power between the parties," he wrote, warning that absolutist interpretations favoring either side could complicate future negotiations aimed at reaching a final agreement.

The news website Rouydad24 described the current arrangement as "a major geopolitical ceasefire and a preliminary non-proliferation agreement" rather than a lasting peace settlement.

"Iranian diplomacy must now move from the phase of containing war to consolidating achievements and achieving the durable removal of sanctions — a marathon in which wisdom, domestic cohesion and avoiding unnecessary extremism are the first conditions for success," the report said.

In a commentary for Asr-e Iran, journalist Reza Ghibishavi argued that the end of the conflict could mark a historic turning point for the country.

"From Monday morning, with the official end of the war and the end of abnormal conditions, Iran enters a new era," he wrote. "A new Iran with a new leader, new circumstances, new experiences, a new society, a new region, a new agreement, a new America, and a new world. None of them will return to the past."

The Tehran-Washington Memorandum of Understanding, digitally signed on Sunday and expected to be formally signed in Geneva on Friday, has exposed deep divisions across Iran’s media landscape.

Editorials and opinion columns published after the announcement ranged from warnings of capitulation to claims that diplomacy had been made possible by Iran’s military deterrence and could offer the country a path out of war and economic pressure.

Hardliners warn of retreat

Kayhan, the hardline conservative daily, adopted a tone of open opposition, portraying the agreement as diplomatic capitulation under Western pressure and breaking with the official state narrative of victory.

“Surrendering to the Great Satan under the guise of an ‘antidote’ or regional de-escalation is a betrayal of our long-standing resistance,” Kayhan wrote.

“The historical track record shows that retreating before American demands never guarantees peace; it only invites further exploitation. This administration is repeating past blunders, turning a blind eye to our ultimate red lines.”

Khorasan, a conservative daily close to chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, framed the MoU not as a peace settlement but as a tactical pause.

“The emerging agreement only aims to end the current war and does not resolve the underlying issues between Iran and the United States,” it wrote.

“This text merely delays the ‘final battle,’ giving both sides time to rebuild offensive and defensive military capabilities and prepare for a larger, full-scale war.”

Hamshahri, the conservative daily affiliated with Tehran Municipality, adopted a more cautious and technocratic tone. It neither endorsed nor rejected the agreement outright, but argued that any concessions from Washington were the result of Iran’s military deterrence rather than US goodwill.

“Let no one mistake this memorandum for a change of heart in Washington,” Hamshahri wrote.

“It is the undeniable triumph of the ‘Field’ and our defensive missile deterrence that dragged Trump’s negotiators to the table. Our economic relief is a direct dividend of our strategic strength, not a product of blind trust in foreign promises.”

Conservatives split over diplomacy

Not all conservative outlets rejected the agreement. Jomhouri Eslami, a traditional conservative newspaper, took the opposite line, criticizing hardline factions that it accused of trying to sabotage diplomacy.

“Anyone who possesses true national pride and genuine patriotism does not beat the drums of endless war,” the paper wrote.

“The remnants of past failed administrations are deliberately trying to stoke public unrest and invite economic ruin just to force their way back into power. True resilience is knowing when to secure the nation’s interests through calculated diplomacy.”

The split among conservative outlets reflected a broader divide inside the Iranian establishment: whether the MoU should be presented as a forced retreat, a tactical military pause, or a pragmatic decision backed by the state.

Reformists defend the agreement

Reformist newspaper Shargh focused on the structural pressures facing Iran, arguing that diplomacy carried costs but that continued economic siege left the country with few viable alternatives.

“We have reached a critical junction where the heavy toll of economic warfare and international naval blockades has worn down our baseline financial structures,” Sharq wrote.

“Confronted with a choice between managed tactical retreats or total systemic rupture, holding a unified defense line via calculated engagement remains our only viable shield against unchecked American geopolitical overreach.”

Etemad, a reformist daily closely aligned with President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration, emphasized institutional cohesion and warned against internal fractures during the high-stakes implementation phase.

“The finalization of this text is not the decision of a single rogue faction or isolated ministry,” Etemad wrote.

“It is the calculated strategy of the entire sovereign system. The judiciary must act firmly against coordinated internal actors who use falsehoods, defamation, and targeted threats to undermine national unity at the very hour the country needs internal stability most.”

Arman-e Melli, a reform-leaning centrist publication, focused on the economic implications of the agreement, especially the need to ensure that sanctions relief and the lifting of shipping restrictions produce tangible results.

“While the baseline text provides a necessary safety valve for the national currency and immediate relief for global maritime commerce, the true test lies in the verification phase,” the paper wrote.

“The Foreign Ministry must ensure that the lifting of shipping blockades and primary oil sanctions occurs concurrently with our own adjustments, preventing any unilateral bad-faith maneuvers from Washington.”

Digital outlets highlight political fallout

Moderate news website Khabar Online celebrated the breakthrough while highlighting the anxiety it has created among hardliners and regional rivals.

“This historic text marks the definitive victory of collective wisdom over blind extremism,” it wrote.

“While radical elements inside the country scream betrayal, this agreement dismantles the multi-decade campaign to isolate Iran, offering a path where our core nuclear infrastructure remains intact while the economic siege is shattered.”

Fararu, a reform-leaning website, focused on the widening split within the conservative camp, saying mainstream conservative figures were increasingly distancing themselves from the hard right.

“The political landscape has completely shifted overnight,” Fararu wrote.

“Mainstream conservative pillars and major establishment figures are openly breaking away from the ultra-radical factions who are screaming ‘treason’ on the streets.”

Rouydad24 took a sharper institutional angle, arguing that opposition to the deal could isolate hardliners from the state’s decision-making structure.

“By standing against a deal approved at the highest levels of the National Security Council, the extreme right is effectively alienating themselves from the core governance architecture of the Islamic Republic,” it wrote.

Nour News, linked to the Supreme National Security Council, stayed close to the official line, presenting the agreement as a victory for Iran’s combined strategy of deterrence and diplomacy.

“Through a grueling, multi-month diplomatic campaign backed by unbreakable defense capabilities, the Islamic Republic has successfully achieved its primary strategic objectives,” Nour News wrote.

“The immediate and permanent termination of hostile operations across all fronts, coupled with the absolute lifting of the naval embargo, stands as an unvarnished testament to the efficacy of our dual strategy of active deterrence and robust negotiation.”

A deal, and a domestic battle

Taken together, the reactions show that the MoU has not only opened a new diplomatic phase between Tehran and Washington, but also triggered a domestic battle over how the agreement should be understood.

For hardliners, it risks being framed as a retreat from Iran’s red lines. For pro-diplomacy outlets, it is a state-backed attempt to end the war, ease economic pressure and prevent further escalation.

The sharpness of the debate suggests that the next stage of the MoU may be fought not only at the negotiating table, but also inside Iran’s political and media establishment.