Three-minute read
As the clerical regime in Iran re-engages in indirect nuclear negotiations with the United States in Rome, a chorus of officials in Tehran has raised alarm about the potential domestic fallout of any diplomatic breakthrough. Their statements reveal a deep fear that renewed talks — far from strengthening the regime — could erode its internal control and spark fresh unrest across the country.
In a telling address on the parliament floor, Abolfazl Aboutorabi, a member of the regime’s parliament, warned that foreign adversaries are deliberately using the negotiation track to foment instability inside Iran. “The enemy has pinned its hopes on four issues to polarize the country,” he said. “The first is negotiation. They want to use the issue of negotiation and the polarization around it to cause chaos and disorder within the country.”
Aboutorabi’s remarks place diplomacy on equal footing with other so-called threats, such as compulsory hijab, inflation, and tensions around foreign nationals — all framed as tools to “drag people into the streets.” He concluded with a familiar refrain: “The only solution is total obedience to the Leader… not one step ahead, not one step behind.”
Talks as Tactics: How #Iran’s Regime Uses Diplomacy to Buy Time and Avoid Accountabilityhttps://t.co/KpUI81KgA0
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) April 16, 2025
Echoing these concerns, MP Gholamreza Shariati described a perilous scenario in which the regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been cornered by foreign pressure. “These days, the criminal Trump has placed the Supreme Leader between two choices: accepting a forced peace or facing war,” he claimed, portraying Iran’s ruler as the ultimate decision-maker navigating a geopolitical trap.
The stakes, however, are not confined to rhetorical brinkmanship. An editorial published on Khamenei.ir, the official website of Iran’s Supreme Leader, warns that the internal consequences of pursuing a deal could be explosive. “Creating a hyped-up and naive atmosphere around the negotiations… opens the enemy’s hand to pressure Iran’s negotiating team,” the article states. “If the opponent senses that reaching an agreement is vital for you and that you’re under pressure from public opinion… they will move to extract more concessions and give less.”
The editorial bluntly criticizes what it calls “daydreaming” about the outcome of diplomacy, branding it a “chewing-gum sweetness” — a temporary high that will soon “burst” and leave behind “deep disappointment.” This emotional backlash, the article cautions, will feed into a broader cycle of public frustration and unrest.
Khamenei Backpedals on U.S. Talks, But Tries to Mask #Iranian Regime’s Submissionhttps://t.co/QWUWVHhtbd
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) April 16, 2025
That fear is already informing official messaging. According to Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s decision to sit at the table was not prompted by U.S. threats. Instead, it reported that the regime’s own president had “requested permission from the Leader” following a letter from Donald Trump — an admission of internal pressure driving the talks.
Even high-level former diplomats have urged caution. Gholamreza Ansari, ex-deputy foreign minister, warned, “People’s expectations from this round of talks must not be raised. The truth is, with the massive obstructionism from Netanyahu’s government, moving the talks forward will be extremely difficult”.
Ansari’s measured tone contrasts sharply with Kayhan, the newspaper overseen by Khamenei’s representative. In a blistering editorial aimed at supporters of negotiations, Kayhan wrote: “You say a half-hour negotiation dropped the price of the dollar and gold. But at what cost? Have you forgotten our national hero, [Qassem] Soleimani, who fought for forty years? Is forgetting him not a heavy price?”
#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
This juxtaposition of economic hope and ideological rigidity exposes the regime’s true strategy: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has no intention of making real concessions. Instead, he uses the negotiations as a time-buying maneuver — a calculated performance meant to ease pressure while preserving the regime’s survival apparatus intact. Any genuine compromise, particularly one that weakens the mechanisms of repression or economic control, is seen by Khamenei as a direct threat to the regime’s power base. He fears that even a small retreat could fracture the wall of fear, embolden the population, and leave the system vulnerable to a renewed uprising.
The message is clear: for Khamenei’s regime, diplomacy is no longer just a foreign policy tool — it is a political minefield. With the memory of recent uprisings still fresh, the regime fears that a negotiated opening could serve not as a safety valve, but as the spark that ignites another national revolt.