Iran International
Resistance to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf's leadership, both as parliament speaker and chief negotiator, appears to be growing, though it remains confined to a small but vocal group of ultraconservative lawmakers.
Over recent days, at least four MPs—Hamid Rasai, Amir Hossein Sabeti, Abolfazl Aboutorabi and Kamran Ghazanfari—have publicly challenged Ghalibaf, accusing him of violating Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's red lines and keeping parliament closed to shield the government and negotiators from criticism.
Despite the attacks, Ghalibaf's position appears secure. A recent internal vote showed his supporters retain a comfortable majority, with fewer than 30 of the Majles' 290 members opposing his speakership.
All four leading critics belong to the ultraconservative Paydari (Steadfastness) Party, which has consistently opposed negotiations with the United States.
Even so, Ghazanfari has threatened that if parliament does not reopen before June 28, he and like-minded MPs will stage a sit-in outside the Majles. He argues the closure was never authorized by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), as Ghalibaf has maintained, and claims one man has effectively been making decisions on behalf of all 290 lawmakers.
Parliament was originally closed after the outbreak of the 40-day war with Israel and the United States because of security concerns.
Ghazanfari's assertion that "all MPs" want parliament reopened is not borne out by events. Over the past four months, only Rasai has publicly demanded its reopening. Ghazanfari nevertheless accuses Ghalibaf of unlawfully keeping the Majles shut because he fears lawmakers would oppose negotiations with Washington.
Ghalibaf has rejected the allegation, saying parliament remains operational and that sessions are being held online because of continuing security risks. He has also called on the Judiciary to investigate the claims against him.
According to ILNA, Ghazanfari has further accused Ghalibaf of violating the constitution and falsely claiming the SNSC ordered parliament's closure.
He also alleges Ghalibaf refused to show MPs the purported SNSC authorization and ignored what he described as a request from Mojtaba Khamenei to reopen parliament.
Hardline MP Abolfazl Aboutorabi told the Didban Iran website that Ghalibaf was preventing parliament from legislating on Iran's sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. He accused the speaker of "playing with words" by presenting the accord with the United States as an MoU rather than a binding agreement.
Aboutorabi said several MPs were preparing a legal complaint against Ghalibaf, arguing that any memorandum or agreement should require parliamentary approval.
Asked whether MPs planned to impeach President Masoud Pezeshkian over the MoU, he replied that impeachment was not currently under consideration, adding: "Maybe God helps and makes him a martyr."
The remark is among the most serious death-tinged comments directed at the president since a prominent eulogist earlier suggested Pezeshkian could be beheaded before later insisting the remark had been intended as an "internal discussion."
Aboutorabi also accused Ghalibaf of violating Khamenei's red lines on the Strait of Hormuz and nuclear negotiations.
Similar allegations have been made by other Paydari figures, including Mahmoud Nabavian and Amir Hossein Sabeti, who argue the agreement with Washington is being pursued against the Supreme Leader's wishes.
For now, however, there is little indication the campaign is gaining traction beyond a small faction. Ghalibaf's support within parliament remains strong, while his longstanding ties to the Revolutionary Guards and Khamenei's inner circle leave him well placed to withstand attacks from rivals with far less institutional backing.
Speaking in Switzerland on Monday, Vance said Washington could agree to release frozen Iranian funds for purchases of US agricultural products such as wheat, corn and soybeans.
"If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people," Vance said.
He said the United States and Qatar would oversee the process, though Iranian officials have disputed that characterization.
Trump made similar remarks on Tuesday, saying money taken out of Iran would go to American farmers to provide “corn, soybeans, wheat to Iran.”
“They have a hunger problem, they have a food problem, they have a medicine problem, they got a lot of problems,” Trump said, adding that inflation in Iran had “hit 300%.”
The remarks sparked widespread reactions from Iran International's viewers, many of whom said the country's struggle cannot be reduced to hunger.
"American officials talk about hunger in Iran as if our problem is a lack of food. Everything exists here. Government policies have made food unaffordable. Sending grain won't solve our problems," one viewer told Iran International.
While many respondents acknowledged the country's worsening economic crisis, they argued that inflation, corruption and decades of mismanagement—not a shortage of food—have made life increasingly difficult.
Others said they have little faith that any economic relief provided to the Islamic Republic would ultimately benefit ordinary citizens.
"Right now the Islamic Republic is probably figuring out how to send that wheat to Lebanon and Iraq," one viewer wrote.
The comment was a reference to the Islamic Republic's long-standing support for regional militant allies and proxy groups. Many respondents argued that Tehran has repeatedly prioritized its regional strategy over the welfare of its own citizens.
Several viewers also objected to what they saw as a portrayal of Iranians as a population waiting to be fed.
"The people of Iran are not hungry. They sacrificed their lives and shed blood for freedom," one respondent said.
Many pointed to the nationwide protests of January 2026, arguing that the movement was driven by demands for freedom and political change rather than economic assistance.
Some referenced the symbolic scene in Abdanan, where protesters threw rice into the air during demonstrations. Videos from the western city showed protesters throwing rice into the air, a gesture many interpreted as a rejection of the idea that their uprising was driven by hunger.
"Mr. Vance, you were not there during those January nights in Abdanan when grains of rice fell from the sky like snow," one citizen wrote.
For many respondents, the image symbolized dignity and defiance. They argued that while many Iranians are struggling economically, the country's crisis is ultimately one of governance and freedom.
They did not deny the depth of economic hardship, but said reducing Iran’s crisis to hunger ignored the political nature of their struggle.
Others stressed that Iran is not a poor country lacking resources.
"Our problem with the Islamic Republic is not only economic. It is a government that opposes human dignity, personal freedoms and Iran's ancient national culture. It is governed by ideology and follows a path separate from the Iranian people," one viewer wrote.
Another respondent was blunter.
"Mr. Vance, Iran is a rich country. If you don't believe me, ask Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular Mobilization Forces and the Houthis."
The reactions reveal deep skepticism among Iranians who wrote to Iran International toward any agreement that could provide financial relief to the Islamic Republic. For them, the issue is not hunger alone, but freedom, dignity and who ultimately benefits when money flows back into the hands of Tehran.
Less than a week after the two sides signed the MoU to end more than three months of war, its contradictions are already shaping the next phase of diplomacy: Hormuz is open, but ships may still need Iranian permission; funds are “available,” but Washington says they may be channeled toward wheat, corn and other approved purchases; inspectors are “back,” according to US officials, but Iran says there is no plan for UN inspectors to visit bombed nuclear sites; oil sales have been authorized, but Vice President JD Vance says Tehran will not benefit unless it changes behavior; Lebanon is written into the deal, but Israel is not a party to it.
For Iran, ambiguity has become leverage. Officials in Tehran are insisting that implementation of the MoU’s early provisions is a precondition for talks on more sensitive issues, while rejecting US descriptions of what the next stage should include.
Nuclear sites and missiles
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Tuesday that Tehran had not met International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi in Switzerland and had no plan for UN nuclear inspectors to visit facilities damaged in US and Israeli strikes.
“We have not had a meeting with the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, nor do we have any plans for an agency inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities that were damaged as a result of the military attack by the United States and the Zionist regime,” Baghaei said. “Basically, there is no procedure at all in this regard.”
That directly undercut Vance’s statement that talks on inspectors’ return could begin this week and President Donald Trump’s claim that Iran would agree to “major weapons inspections.”
Baghaei also ruled out talks on Iran’s missile program.
“Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities have never been part of our talks, nor will they ever be subject to negotiation with any party,” he said.
Money, oil and the first rewards
The dispute over money is just as sharp. Baghaei rejected the idea that Iran had agreed to spend released assets on US agricultural goods, after Vance said Washington wanted a mechanism to steer funds toward purchases such as soy, corn and wheat.
Baghaei said Iran would use its assets based on national needs, including price and quality.
“What is important for us is access to assets that have been unjustly blocked,” he said.
At the same time, the US Treasury has issued a 60-day license allowing Iran to produce, sell and deliver crude oil, petroleum products and petrochemicals, with related banking, insurance and transport services.
That gives both sides a political line. Washington says deeper benefits remain conditional. Tehran can point to immediate oil authorization and access to blocked assets as proof that pressure has begun to give way.
The same ambiguity surrounds the proposed $300 billion reconstruction framework. It exists in the text, but US officials have denied direct US or Qatari payments, leaving unclear whether it means grants, investment, credit facilities or future regional funding.
Hormuz is open, but under whose rules?
The Strait of Hormuz is the clearest practical test.
Ali Bahreini, Iran’s ambassador to the UN office in Geneva, said Tuesday that Hormuz was “completely open” to commercial vessels and that no charges would be collected during the 60-day period.
“Yes, the Strait of Hormuz is completely open, of course, for commercial vessels, according to the memorandum of understanding,” Bahreini said. “And it is without receiving any charges. After 60 days, it depends on the negotiations.”
But the Financial Times reported that shipowners are in “deep confusion” over conflicting guidance. Iran has told vessels to seek permission from Tehran and use a route near the Iranian coast, while the US and some Western insurers advise ships to use a route on the Omani side under US air cover.
That leaves shipowners weighing the risk of Iranian interference against possible sanctions, insurance or compliance concerns.
The contradiction captures the MoU’s central problem: the US says Hormuz has reopened; Iran says reopening proves ships must deal with Tehran’s authority.
Lebanon still as the next flashpoint
Lebanon may be the deal’s most dangerous test.
Bahreini said Iran told the Switzerland talks that Lebanon is an “unquestionable part” of the MoU and that ending military operations must include respect for Lebanon’s territorial integrity, a halt to attacks and Israeli withdrawal.
“Iran’s red line is any attack against Lebanon, any more attack against Lebanon,” he said.
He warned that Iran would respond to any violation, including attacks on Lebanon or Hezbollah.
“If they are going to violate the MOU in any format, including by attacking Lebanon and Hezbollah in Lebanon, then Iran will respond,” he said.
Earlier on Tuesday, Reuters reported that Israeli gunfire killed two people in southern Lebanon, the first reported fatalities from Israeli fire there in three days. The Israeli military said it struck armed militants who posed an immediate threat.
A joint statement after US-Iran talks mediated by Pakistan and Qatar said the parties had agreed to create a deconfliction cell to monitor the termination of hostilities in Lebanon. But Israel is not a party to the US-Iran MoU, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week that Israeli troops retain freedom of action against Hezbollah threats and will remain in Lebanon as long as necessary.
That leaves Washington responsible for restraining an ally outside the deal, while Tehran treats Lebanon as a condition for keeping talks alive.
A deal already under strain
Baghaei said talks on sanctions and nuclear issues depend on implementation of specific MoU provisions.
“The start of negotiations on these two issues is contingent on the implementation of specific provisions of the memorandum of understanding,” he said. “Part of it has been achieved, and part of it is being implemented.”
That is the emerging shape of the deal: each side is implementing the clauses it can sell, disputing the clauses it dislikes, and using unresolved language as leverage before the final agreement.
For now, the MoU has stopped a wider war and reopened commercial movement through Hormuz. But it has also created a new diplomatic battlefield in which every clause is being tested, stretched and weaponized before the 60-day clock has even fully begun.
