Iranians divided on possible US-Iran presidential meeting

Social media posts and readers’ comments on reports published by some media outlets reveal divergent views about the possibility of a meeting between the US and Iranian presidents.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday expressed hope for a nuclear agreement with Iran, stating his willingness to engage in talks with his Iranian counterpart. He added that he did not care who initiated the contact.

Some social media users noted that while Masoud Pezeshkian may be Iran’s president, unlike Trump, he is not the country’s highest authority. They emphasized that Pezeshkian would need approval from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for all significant decisions, including matters of foreign policy.

“Trump has absolute authority in the US for everything. Does Pezeshkian also have absolute authority?” one commenter questioned, pointing out that Pezeshkian lacks the power to fulfill even smaller promises, such as removing social media platform filters.

“Hold an urgent meeting with political, economic, cultural, and diplomatic experts, go to the Leader after summarizing [the situation], and invite Trump to Iran after his approval! Trump is ready for a deal,” Amin Asgari, a political economy researcher, told Pezeshkian in an X post.

Like many others, former Deputy to President Hassan Rouhani, Hamid Aboutalebi, advocated for diplomacy over hostility in a detailed post addressed to Pezeshkian. He urged Pezeshkian to call Trump and signal Iran’s readiness for talks, citing the need to reach a preliminary agreement to “prevent further tensions, mitigate risks, and avoid the potential activation of the snapback mechanism or escalation into conflict and war.”

Economic concerns

Many Iranians expressed economic concerns in response to media reports and social media discussions on the possibility of resuming maximum pressure sanctions.

Refusal to engage in talks with Trump, they argued, could lead to severe economic consequences as evidenced by the fast response of the foreign exchange market to the announcement and the depreciation of the rial.

“Forget about [the possibility of] negotiations. What will happen is maximum pressure and a halt in Iran's oil sales. This means more wretchedness and misery for us all,” lamented one user on X.

Another anonymous reader urged comprehensive talks, writing, “Think of the lifting of sanctions instead of squandering opportunities and spouting empty slogans.” This comment, posted on the conservative Tabnak news website under the headline “Trump’s Return to Maximum Pressure against Iran: Re-Taking an Unviable Path” received 125 upvotes and only nine downvotes.

Other comments on the same article echoed similar sentiments, predicting difficult times for Iran if hostilities with the US persist. However, not everyone agreed. One reader argued, “The Revolutionary Guards must give the Americans a new lesson,” though 297 users opposed the comment, while only 36 supported it.

Opposition to talks

Radical elements opposed to negotiations with the US reiterated in their posts that no Iranian official should meet with Trump. They cited his role in the assassination of Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani in January 2021. “We demand retribution for General Soleimani’s killers,” one user wrote on X.

Ehsan, an ultra-hardliner social media activist with over 3,700 followers, criticized reformist media outlets for selectively highlighting Trump’s remarks. “Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, impose maximum pressure, and prevent oil sales have been ignored by reformists, who instead focus on his willingness to meet Pezeshkian,” he wrote.

Interestingly, even some hardliner outlets, including Hamshahri, ran headlines such as “Trump: I’m Ready to Talk to Pezeshkian.”