Four-minute read
In the days following the ceasefire between Iran and Israel after their 12-day conflict, state-controlled media has entered a phase of rhetorical escalation rather than de-escalation. Nowhere is this more visible than in the pages of Kayhan Daily, whose editorial line is widely recognized to be directly supervised by the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. A detailed reading of multiple Kayhan articles published on June 27, 2025, reveals a concerted and strategic intensification of language—ranging from overt threats to international officials to condemnations of domestic dissenters. This extreme rhetoric is less a display of strength than a symptom of vulnerability, seeking to mask the internal destabilization inflicted by the war.
From Surveillance to Execution: The Kayhan Doctrine
Among the most striking features of Kayhan’s post-ceasefire narrative is its vilification of Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In a column styled as a satirical “dialogue,” Kayhan first reports that Iran has “no intention to receive Grossi,” before immediately escalating: “It would have been more decisive to say Grossi is an exposed Mossad spy and will never be allowed into Iran.” The piece continues: “He should be officially declared to be tried and executed for espionage on behalf of the Mossad and for participating in the murder of our innocent people.”
This is not a stray opinion—it is featured prominently and aligns with the state’s increasing hostility toward international oversight mechanisms. That Grossi is equated with direct involvement in sabotage and assassination points to the regime’s perception that technical cooperation with international institutions has become a security liability. More importantly, it reveals a regime lashing out symbolically to compensate for real, structural failures in intelligence, deterrence, and operational control.
#Iranian Regime’s Escalating Rhetoric Masks Fear of Isolation and Collapsehttps://t.co/DqghRIENTZ
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) June 2, 2025
Rhetoric as Deflection
Across its editorial columns, Kayhan continues to portray the war as a historic victory for the regime while simultaneously warning against further inspections, UN mandates, or any return to diplomacy. In the lead editorial, the newspaper praises the Parliament for passing legislation to halt cooperation with the IAEA and threatens to resume uranium enrichment to 90% or beyond. It openly advocates for the construction of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), urging lawmakers to authorize the development of systems capable of striking American soil: “The successful performance of the Salman solid-fuel engine… shows that reaching ICBMs with 12,000-kilometer range is within the grasp of the Islamic Republic.”
Yet this language—grandiose, apocalyptic—is shadowed by unmistakable signs of institutional fear. The same article admits that even standard IAEA inspections in past years were “used by Israel and the U.S. to target Iran’s human and technical infrastructure.” This anxiety about infiltration echoes other state-aligned media reports, such as Arman Melli, which exposes massive vulnerabilities in Iran’s customs system and suggests domestic workshops which built drones that struck deep inside Iran.
#Iran’s Officials Use Bold Rhetoric at 1979 Revolution Rallies to Mask Unprecedented Vulnerabilityhttps://t.co/S3iD9GFBOi
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) February 10, 2025
The Real Threat Within
While the external threat is amplified, state media betrays deeper concern about internal fracture. In another Kayhan editorial titled “Distortion and division,” media figures, the so-called reformists, and diaspora voices are accused of “running a campaign of distortion” to undermine national unity and “cover up the defeat of the Zionist enemy.” The article demands that the intelligence and judiciary apparatus “track and dismantle this treasonous network,” claiming it is part of a broader line of “penetration and sabotage.” These accusations are not merely rhetorical flourishes. They reflect the regime’s increasing anxiety over domestic unrest, especially after a war that left hundreds of dead—including many in the security forces—and failed to secure any real deterrence.
A direct quote captures the state of paranoia: “If the threads are properly traced, we will very likely find that the same people who gave the enemy the coordinates to strike us are among this group.” This invocation of betrayal from within reveals not confidence, but a crisis of trust at the top of the security apparatus.
Similarly, other regime-aligned publications like Khorasan and Farhikhtegan warn against “dualities” and “dichotomies”—the nation versus the ummah, Islam versus nationalism—accusing intellectuals and media figures of playing into the hands of foreign agents. Khorasan writes: “The enemy used this gap… now some are reviving it with divisive speeches. This is not a tactical error, it is a strategic threat to national cohesion.”
#Iran’s Regime Scrambles to Mask Defeat, Control Fallout After Ceasefirehttps://t.co/qC7wxMACAf
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) June 26, 2025
Hostility as a Survival Script
The regime’s tone in the wake of the ceasefire does not suggest triumph but trauma. With scores of IRGC and military leaders killed, critical infrastructure compromised, and the specter of sabotage lingering, Iran’s leadership appears to have turned inward—suspicious, punitive, and driven by ideological fervor that often substitutes for operational clarity.
Kayhan’s call to execute an international figure like Grossi is a grotesque symbol of this moment. Not just hostile—it is desperate. When language becomes this extreme, it signals a system under pressure. By branding dissenters traitors, purging international oversight, and obsessively promoting “unity,” the clerical dictatorship isn’t preparing for peace. It is bracing for its downfall—from within or without.