Iranian political factions split over Khamenei’s rejection of US talks

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s emphatic rejection of talks with the United States on Friday has sparked mixed reactions and interpretations within Iran—primarily on social media.

Implicitly referring to President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement in 2018, Khamenei said that “Negotiating with such a government should not be done; it is neither wise, intelligent nor honorable."

Trump reinstated his "maximum pressure" sanctions this week but also extended an olive branch, proposing a meeting with his Iranian counterpart and expressing hope that if an agreement ensures Iran abandons the pursuit of nuclear weapons, further sanctions would not be unnecessary.

A US State Department spokesman told Iran International on Friday that Iran will remain under the restored maximum pressure campaign unless it chooses to pursue a deal.

Most Iranian media outlets have reported Khamenei’s statements without commentary or analysis. As seen in previous instances reported by Iranian journalists, higher authorities—such as the Supreme National Security Council—may have directed the media to refrain from critical coverage of the speech.

Hardliner and ultra-hardliner media outlets and politicians, however, have insisted that Khamenei’s speech unequivocally banned any response to President Donald Trump’s proposal to hold direct negotiations with his Iranian counterpart.

"The Leader of the Revolution's stance on negotiations with the United States was stated in the clearest possible terms, leaving no room for alternative interpretations," the Revolutionary Guards-linked Javan newspaper wrote in an editorial Saturday.

The editorial also demanded that President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government urgently align with Khamenei’s directive “to safeguard national unity.” In fact, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghci announced on Saturday that he will follow the Supreme Leader's guidance in foreign policy.

In a social media post, an ultra-hardliner lawmaker, Mohammad-Mannan Raisi, issued a stern warning to those advocating for talks with the United States. “After His Excellency’s speech today, if they continue pushing their unrectified views and pressuring the Leader, we will no longer respond with mere speeches and commentaries,” Raisi wrote on social media.

On the other hand, supporters of direct US-Iran negotiations offered alternative interpretations of Khamenei’s remarks, suggesting they might not represent a complete rejection of talks. Some argued that Khamenei was merely emphasizing the need for clear outcomes, such as lifting sanctions, rather than engaging in futile negotiations.

In support of this view, proponents noted that Khamenei’s speech did not refer to the 2020 killing of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, an event often cited by hardliners to oppose dialogue with Trump.

Mohammad-Ali Ahangaran, a moderate conservative political analyst, interpreted Khamenei’s position as part of a broader negotiation strategy. “As a scholar in international law and political science, I see this as an element in ongoing negotiations,” Ahangaran wrote on social media.

Similarly, former reformist lawmaker Akbar Alami argued that Khamenei’s speech was a tactical move aimed at securing guarantees from Trump that any potential agreement would not be abandoned, as happened in 2018. Alami recalled that Khamenei had previously opposed negotiations during three speeches in 2012 and 2013, even as secret talks with the US were reportedly taking place in Oman.

During this period, Jake Sullivan, the former National Security Advisor to the US Vice President Joe Biden and William Burns, the Deputy Secretary of State under Barack Obama, reportedly held talks with Iranian representatives in Muscat.

Abdolreza Davari, a former aide to ex-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, suggested that Khamenei’s remarks were not a rejection of negotiations per se but a call for talks to focus on resolving Iran’s problems, particularly sanctions relief.

“Negotiation for its own sake, as seen during the tenure of [Saeed] Jalili [during Ahmadinejad’s presidency] has no outcome other than exacerbating the country’s problems,” he said in an x post, adding that Pezeshkian’s government must “define the requirements for wise, logical, or honorable talks” to prevent a similar outcome.

Paris-based political analyst Hamzeh Ghalebi also argued that Khamenei’s rhetoric implied that negotiations had not been ruled out. According to Ghalebi, Trump demands that Iran forgo nuclear and strategic weapons, while Khamenei seeks guarantees that such disarmament would not compromise Iran’s security and that sanctions would be genuinely lifted. “The first stage of negotiations has already taken place,” Ghalebi concluded.