Tehran billboard hints Trump is the 'next one' after Graham's death

Both men appeared to be making the same argument to critics within their own political camps: that diplomacy is most effective when backed by credible military force, not pursued instead of it.

The parallel messaging prompted analysts to suggest that, despite rising tensions, both sides may still view diplomacy as preferable to war.

International relations analyst Amir-Ali Abolfath wrote on X that Ghalibaf's statement, Vance's remarks and Iran's release of an Iranian-American prisoner together offered "a glimmer of hope" that both sides could return to managing tensions within the framework of an agreement "whose fate hangs by a thread."

Reform-leaning news website Rouydad24 likewise described the prisoner's release as evidence of "the opening of an important diplomatic channel amid an exchange of fire."

US President Donald Trump also welcomed the move, writing on Truth Social that "the United States appreciates this gesture of goodwill by Iran."

‘Talking is not compromise’

Ghalibaf issued a public statement on Wednesday defending what he described as the course pursued under Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's guidance, arguing that negotiations with the United States remain compatible with military preparedness and resistance.

Rather than presenting diplomacy and military readiness as opposing choices, he argued they were complementary tools for safeguarding Iran's national interests.

"War and negotiation are two methods of protecting the national interest," he said, insisting that negotiations are "part of safeguarding national interests, not synonymous with compromise."

He warned that treating either military confrontation or diplomacy as the sole solution would amount to "a strategic mistake," adding that officials have a duty to prepare "for war, diplomacy, or both," depending on the course set by the Supreme Leader.

"We must stand firm on the achievements secured through the MoU until the nation's rights are fully realized," he wrote.

Hours later, Vance struck a remarkably similar tone in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, rejecting the idea of overthrowing Iran's government through US military force.

He argued that diplomacy, backed by military pressure, remained the preferred way to manage the crisis, and criticized "warmongers" pushing for conflict.

A well-funded covert campaign, Vance claimed, was seeking to derail negotiations and any agreement with Tehran.

Hardliners push back

The renewed defense of diplomacy triggered an immediate backlash from Iran's hardline camp, where many have argued since the recent military confrontation that the Tehran-Washington understanding should be formally declared dead.

Kamran Ghazanfari, a member of parliament, accused President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf of lacking the courage to acknowledge that the agreement had collapsed.

"Whether they call it war or not, the third war has effectively begun," he said, arguing that the negotiating team should publicly admit that talks had reached a dead end.

Hardline journalist Davood Modarresian likewise criticized Ghalibaf's statement, saying it contained "no sign of change or apology" and faulting him for continuing to advocate negotiations despite what he described as Washington's abandonment of the agreement.

Hardline political activist Masoud Barati challenged Ghalibaf's description of negotiations as a form of struggle.

"Calling negotiations a form of struggle gives primacy to negotiations," Barati wrote. "If negotiations have failed to secure Iran's achievements, why insist on continuing this approach?"

Conservative rivalry deepens

The latest dispute reflects a long-running rivalry between Ghalibaf and former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, both prominent figures within Iran's conservative establishment.

In recent months, lawmakers aligned with Jalili and members of the ultraconservative Paydari Front have intensified criticism of Ghalibaf, arguing that negotiations with Washington should be abandoned altogether.

Their influence, however, appears to have weakened after losing two key leadership positions on parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.

Adding to signs of growing pressure on the hardline faction, lawmaker Majid Nasrpour told Khabar Online in comments published Thursday that "some hardline members of parliament have been summoned by the relevant authorities and seriously warned over their remarks."

The petition, hosted on the Iranian platform Karzar, calls on prominent Paydari figures, including lawmakers Hamid Rasaei and Amirhossein Sabeti, to travel to the southern cities of Sirik and Bandar Abbas, where residents have faced repeated attacks during the conflict.

Its authors said such a visit would help the politicians "better understand the realities on the ground" and avoid decisions that could endanger civilians.

Challenge to hardline rhetoric

The petition says residents of southern Iran have lived under "direct and around-the-clock threats" while military personnel and civilians alike face fears of further attacks and damage to critical infrastructure.

It argues that politicians who have called for a wartime posture should experience those conditions themselves, saying a field visit could lead to "more realistic decision-making" and greater solidarity with local communities.

The Paydari Front is one of Iran's most hardline political factions and has been among the strongest opponents of negotiations with the United States. Its lawmakers have repeatedly criticized President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi over diplomacy with Washington.

Earlier this week, parliament removed two of the bloc's most outspoken critics of negotiations from senior positions on the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, reflecting growing tensions within Iran's conservative establishment over the handling of the conflict.

• 

  The Paydari Party: Iran’s ultra-hardliner powerhouse explained

Southern anger

The petition has coincided with growing criticism on Persian-language social media over the burden borne by southern Iran, where much of the fighting has been concentrated.

In a video posted on Instagram, a comedian and influencer from southern Iran accused officials of downplaying attacks on the region. He said that when Tehran and other parts of the country came under attack, authorities described them as missile and drone strikes, but now that the south was bearing the brunt of the fighting, incoming rockets were being referred to simply as "projectiles."

"They've sanitized the language," he said. "It's as if a four- or five-year-old neighbor's child has thrown a stone at someone." He added: "You may not have the courage to call it what it is, but at least have some humanity. Don't treat southerners differently from everyone else."

Journalist Azadeh Mokhtari wrote on X that southern Iran was "the beating heart of Iran's economy," saying its ports were vital to imports, cargo handling and supplying much of the country.

• 

  Who are the Islamic Republic’s ‘Super-Revolutionaries’ challenging Tehran

Another X user argued that the Islamic Republic had turned large parts of the southern coastline into military zones and missile sites while residents continued to struggle with poverty despite the region's strategic importance and natural wealth.

A third wrote that Iranians should not pretend there was no war simply because the attacks were concentrated in the south. "Southern Iran is an inseparable part of this country," the post said. "Its pain is the pain of all Iran."

Unity message meets political divisions

The petition emerged as Iran's Press Supervisory Board instructed media outlets not to highlight political or factional disputes, urging them instead to avoid content it said could harm national cohesion or amplify social divisions.

The guidance told outlets to avoid "highlighting political and factional differences," "reproducing internal disputes" and publishing material that could undermine public unity.

Iran ranks among the world's lowest countries for press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders, which says state repression continues to weigh heavily on independent journalism.

Iran's parliament had not held regular public sessions since the outbreak of the recent war, with the suspension reportedly ordered by the Supreme National Security Council.

The legislature reconvened on Monday after briefly meeting in late May to elect its presiding board, when Ghalibaf secured a seventh consecutive term as speaker.

During the committee's internal leadership election on Monday, Mahmoud Nabavian lost his position as first deputy chairman, while Ebrahim Rezaei was removed as spokesperson.

Both are among parliament's most outspoken opponents of engagement with Washington and frequent critics of Ghalibaf.

The outcome shifted the committee's balance toward lawmakers seen as more supportive of diplomacy, triggering an angry reaction from the hardline camp.

The IRGC-affiliated Fars News Agency questioned the legitimacy of the vote on Tuesday, describing the election as "shrouded in ambiguity." It quoted an unnamed committee member as saying a fresh ballot would be held to determine whether Alaeddin Boroujerdi or Ebrahim Azizi would chair the committee.

The reform-leaning Rouydad24 news website described the result as "a sign of a shift in the balance of power in one of parliament's most important committees," saying it was likely to influence parliament's approach to foreign policy and national security in the coming months.

It added that parliament's reopening had restored an important platform for critics of President Masoud Pezeshkian's government and opponents of negotiations with Washington, allowing them once again to use speeches, questioning sessions, impeachment motions and legislative initiatives to challenge government policy.

‘A coup’

Hardline activists have portrayed the parliamentary suspension and committee reshuffle as part of Ghalibaf's effort to sideline the ultraconservative Paydari Front.

Despite its vocal presence, the Paydari Front remains a minority even within the conservative-dominated parliament. In May's election for parliament's presiding board, the faction's candidate received just 29 votes against Ghalibaf's 235.

International relations researcher Abolfazl Bazargan criticized the reshuffle, writing that the committee changes were "not a strategic disaster but a soft coup against the country's security."

The vote also prompted a wave of criticism on social media. One user on X wrote: "Parliament reopened twice—once for him to become speaker again, and once to remove his opponents. You're the dictator."

More say on Hormuz

The committee reshuffle came as lawmakers sought to assert parliament's role in negotiations with Washington and policy toward the Strait of Hormuz.

On Tuesday, parliament received a bill titled the Strategic Action for Ensuring Security and Sustainable Development of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. Backed by 180 of the 290 lawmakers, it would tighten parliamentary oversight of the government's diplomatic decisions.

Lawmakers also called for the immediate establishment of a special committee to review negotiations with the United States and oversee implementation of conditions set by Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

Committee chairman Ebrahim Azizi, who retained his post and is regarded as close to Ghalibaf and the traditional conservative camp, defended the initiative on X.

"The Islamic Consultative Assembly stands firm on the country's red lines, especially the management of the Strait of Hormuz," he wrote. "This is only the first step. The next measures will keep our enemies awake at night."

Foreign policy analyst Fereydoun Majles told the Fararu news website that the proposal should be viewed primarily as a political signal.

"The parliamentary initiative should be analysed mainly as a political message," he said. "It seeks to demonstrate that Iran still possesses important geopolitical tools and that regional equations cannot be designed without taking Tehran's interests into account."

"Hard power and soft power complement one another; they are not substitutes," he concluded.

Watching explosions on television and social media from hundreds of kilometers away, many see the confrontation with the United States as another familiar cycle of pressure that may yet give way to negotiations.

Fatemeh Rajabi, the news anchor who first reported the U.S. strikes on ports and military sites in southern Iran on the YouTube program Hasht-e Shab, says many in the capital find it difficult to grasp that a war is unfolding along the northern shores of the Persian Gulf — the region they casually refer to as “down under.”

Reporter Ali Pakzad, who visited the area during the strikes, says missiles hit targets from Abadan near the Iraqi border to Chabahar and Saravan near Pakistan.

He described damaged fishing vessels, battered ports and communities whose livelihoods have been shattered by attacks documented in the program’s footage.

That contrast lies at the heart of an investigative report by journalist Mira Ghorbanifar in Toseh Irani, titled The South in the Fire of War and Ashes of Ceasefire.

Ghorbanifar writes that explosions now puncture the dawn along Iran’s southern coast. Smoke rises from damaged docks, charred dhows lie abandoned, and fish markets once full of noise now speak only of “a war for which no one has yet chosen a definite name.”

While officials speak of “understandings,” “ceasefires” and “crisis management,” she argues, people in Iran’s south are grappling with damaged infrastructure and disrupted shipping, trying to adapt to what increasingly resembles a war of attrition.

She also asks whether the so-called Islamabad Understanding still exists. Is the fighting along Iran’s southern coast part of the same hundred-day conflict, or the start of a new phase of controlled escalation? And can both sides return to negotiations before crossing a point of no return?

The concerns extend well beyond independent journalists.

Government-aligned newspapers have increasingly questioned whether Iran can sustain a prolonged confrontation while struggling to protect civilians and critical infrastructure.

Moderate daily Sharq describes the country’s predicament as “structural and accumulated,” arguing that damaged infrastructure, naval disruption and collapsing logistics have left even minor shocks capable of triggering major crises.

Centrist Etemad warns that public trust has eroded while the state remains unprepared for cascading emergencies.

Economic newspapers have echoed those warnings.

Jahan Sanat argues that Iran’s deterrence is steadily weakening under sustained pressure, while Donya-ye Eghtesad says military decisions are increasingly driven by political necessity rather than strategic advantage, leaving the country more vulnerable in a prolonged conflict.

Washington-based analysts Mohammad Ghaedi and Farzin Nadimi have voiced similar concerns in interviews with Persian-language media abroad.

Ghaedi argues that Iran’s governing system “has repeatedly refused to learn from past mistakes,” pointing to what he sees as a widening disconnect between insulated decision-makers and citizens bearing the costs of conflict.

Nadimi says Iran is confronting the United States at “a moment of maximum structural fragility,” with deterrence eroding and escalation driven more by political necessity than strategic advantage.

“Iran is not in a position to manage a prolonged conflict,” he warns, adding that every new attack “burns away another part of Iran’s deterrent capability.”

Even hardline media have shown hints of concern. Resalat recently urged Iran to “rebuild its defensive capacity” after recent military losses — a rare acknowledgement from a conservative newspaper that the country’s deterrence has been weakened.

For now, the divide remains striking. In Tehran, politicians and commentators continue to debate negotiations, ceasefires and diplomatic understandings.

Along the southern coast, many residents have already stopped asking what to call the conflict. They are simply living through it.

Mahmoud Nabavian lost his position as the committee's first deputy chairman, while Ebrahim Rezaei was replaced as the committee's spokesperson, according to the committee's annual leadership vote.

Ebrahim Azizi was elected committee chairman, Abbas Moghtadaei and Amir Hayat-Moghaddam were chosen as first and second deputy chairmen, Hassan Ghashghavi was elected spokesperson, and Behnam Saeedi and Yaghoub Rezazadeh became the committee's secretaries.

Critics of US negotiations

Nabavian and Rezaei had emerged as two of parliament's most vocal opponents of negotiations with Washington during and after the conflict with the United States and Israel.

• 

  Can Tehran seek revenge and negotiate with Washington?

Nabavian repeatedly argued that any agreement with Washington would amount to an "absolute loss" for Iran and said the country's experience of negotiations had only brought "broken promises, deception and benefits for the enemy."

He also criticized Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Earlier this month, Nabavian also vowed to oppose what he described as a "coup," accusing unnamed political rivals of trying to sideline hardline forces.

Rezaei also said Iran was not intimidated by what he described as threats from US President Donald Trump and that the country was "ready to fight any evil."

In a separate post, he praised the Revolutionary Guards for what he described as asserting Iran's authority over the Strait of Hormuz.

Leak controversy

Nabavian also came under scrutiny after reading excerpts on state television from what he described as secret correspondence from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei on negotiations with the United States. The broadcast was cut off as he continued speaking.

Nabavian said Khamenei had repeatedly objected to the course of the talks and set conditions that were not reflected in the Iran-US memorandum of understanding, including securing compensation from the United States, preserving Iran's uranium enrichment program and maintaining exclusive Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz. He also said Khamenei wanted Iran to begin charging some ships to transit the waterway.

State broadcaster IRIB later said Nabavian's references to classified correspondence could warrant legal action. Ghalibaf adviser Amir Ebrahim Rasouli subsequently called on authorities to identify the source of what he described as confidential state information provided to Nabavian.

• 

  Iran parliament cries censorship after Ghalibaf interview cut short

Parliament returns after months

The committee reshuffle came a day after parliament returned to session, with Deputy Speaker Hamidreza Hajibabaei presiding instead of Ghalibaf.

More than 250 lawmakers attended the session, during which legislators chanted slogans calling for revenge for the killing of former supreme leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials killed in US and Israeli strikes.

Hardline lawmakers affiliated with the Paydari Front had spent months criticizing Ghalibaf for parliament's inactivity, accusing him of preventing lawmakers from meeting in order to avoid parliamentary action against negotiations with the United States. They also repeatedly called for Araghchi's resignation over the talks.

Ghalibaf's office said at the time that the suspension of parliamentary sessions had followed instructions from security authorities.