Three-minute read
As indirect negotiations between the Iranian regime and the United States resumed in Muscat, the clerical dictatorship’s state-aligned media landscape erupted into a cacophony of spin, contradiction, and veiled hysteria. Behind the language of revolutionary pride and nationalist slogans lies a regime deeply terrified, split between factions that fear the consequences of failure and those that fear the consequences of success.
On one side, media outlets close to the regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, such as Kayhan and Farhikhtegan, have gone into overdrive to reassert ideological dominance. Their overriding fear: that even the appearance of diplomatic compromise will trigger an erosion of Khamenei’s loyalist base and embolden an already disillusioned population.
Kayhan warned that “linking the economy to diplomacy only benefits the elite and manipulates the public,” accusing negotiators of fostering false hope. Its message was not just skepticism—it was a coded threat. The paper, acting as Khamenei’s proxy, reminded officials that “after every negotiation, the situation worsens,” implying that concessions made in Muscat will be blamed not on the Leader, but on those who sit at the table. The subtext: if this fails, someone will be sacrificed.
#Tehran In Turmoil: Regime Officials Turn On Each Other As U.S. Talks Expose Deep Internal Crisishttps://t.co/hRZy9z2fJw
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) April 13, 2025
Meanwhile, media aligned with the so-called “reformists”—such as Ham-Mihan, Arman-e-Melli, and Etemad—paint a different kind of fear: not of concessions, but of collapse. These outlets, historically aligned with factions that believe in controlled diplomacy to preserve the regime, are terrified that failure in Muscat could lead to a new wave of protests, or worse.
Ham-Mihan struck a pleading tone, cautioning against repeating the JCPOA disaster. “The system cannot once again set expectations sky-high, only to retreat and blame the West,” it wrote. The fear here is palpable: a broken negotiation would prove that no solution is possible within the current structure, reinforcing the public’s belief that the regime is the problem.
Etemad focused on internal rot, warning that the “core of the regime”—a euphemism for Khamenei’s follower base—is too rigid to accept any practical outcome. The paper indirectly accused this clique of preferring collapse to compromise, stating that their ideological purity has become “a political weapon” that could be turned against the system itself. It warned that if these extremists continue to dominate the narrative, the regime will be cornered into an all-or-nothing posture that neither lifts sanctions nor calms a restless public. The implicit fear is that the Supreme Leader’s entourage, while claiming to defend the revolution, is in fact sabotaging the last chance to avert national disintegration. The paper concluded that if the regime cannot even tolerate symbolic gestures like a handshake, then it is utterly unprepared for the concessions reality may soon demand.
Khamenei’s Defiant Display Masks #Iranian Regime’s Unease Amid U.S. Talkshttps://t.co/zpVuFRD4DK
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) April 13, 2025
Arman-e-Melli echoed cautious skepticism, warning that the negotiations with the United States may once again lead to inflated expectations and eventual disappointment. In an in-depth interview with foreign policy expert Dr. Mohsen Jalilvand, the outlet underscored that real progress is unlikely unless Iran makes significant concessions on uranium enrichment.
Meanwhile, Farhikhtegan, associated with Ali-Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s senior advisor, showed signs of panic cloaked in pragmatism. It chastised radical forces for obsessing over optics like handshakes instead of policy. “If you’ve accepted the necessity of negotiation, then why sabotage it with theatrics?” the paper asked. But beneath its rational facade lies a different alarm: that the infighting itself may sink the talks. Their fear is not ideological, but systemic—if this political war continues unchecked, it may collapse the very process meant to save the regime from implosion.
What connects all these voices—despite their wildly different tones and loyalties—is a shared fear of the unknown. No one dares speak confidently about the outcome in Muscat. Extremist factions are petrified of ideological slippage and the loss of regime loyalists, which renders the regime defenseless when faced with another nationwide revolt. The fake reformists are haunted by the prospect of failure and mass unrest.
#Iranian Regime Officials Undermine Khamenei’s Authority as Discord Grows Over U.S. #Nuclear Talkshttps://t.co/QU5xbCtUO6
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) April 12, 2025
What the regime’s media ecosystem revealed today was not a country standing firm, but a system staggering under the weight of its own lies. A state that has for decades promised resistance now finds itself negotiating with the same enemy it calls the Great Satan—while its own newspapers frantically debate how to spin either failure or surrender.
In a system that portrayed compromise as collapse, the Oman talks are not just a diplomatic risk—they are an existential threat.