Last week, as details of the deal between the United States and Iran began to emerge, a leading Iranian politician stood before a crowd in Tehran and read aloud what he claimed was the final text of the memorandum.
Mahmoud Nabavian, deputy chairman of parliament’s National Security Committee, warned that the deal would turn the Islamic Republic into an “American colony” and open the Strait of Hormuz to Israel.
The speech was broadcast live across the United States and sparked a backlash. Supporters rallied in front of Iran’s Foreign Ministry and launched a “We Will Not Accept” campaign, denouncing what they saw as a humiliating capitulation to Washington.
The deal that the U.S. and Iranian governments ultimately signed is widely said to be highly favorable to Iran. Iranian officials and state media are celebrating this as a victory for the Islamic Republic and a defeat for the United States. But not all Iranians think that way, and many of the deal’s critics are influential and well-connected. The Navavia episode and the ensuing backlash highlight the challenges facing the regime as it tries to sell the deal at home while navigating broader struggles over who will shape Iran’s postwar future.
Dina Esfandiary, head of Middle East geoeconomics at Bloomberg Economics, said the war has effectively given the Iranian government new life. This allowed “a government weakened by demonstrations of discontent and crisis to regain power.” But that doesn’t mean the government will have the support it needs to make the deal a success, she says, and the government will still have to contend with a myriad of domestic problems that existed before the war.
Before the war, containing anti-government opposition was one of the regime’s top domestic priorities. Now the company faces another challenge. It’s about managing opposition from within. Wali Nasr, author of “Iran’s Grand Strategy,” said the supreme leader and those around him should first turn to the hardliners known as Jevhe-e-Paidari, who are close to Mr. Nabavi.
“For this agreement to work, (Supreme Leader) Mojtaba (Khamenei) and the (Irevolutionary Guards) need to control the very forces they helped create,” he said. Hard-liners have tried to block a deal with the United States throughout the negotiation process. They believe such an agreement is less about placating Iranian dissidents and more about placating them by surrendering, he said.
A message allegedly posted by Khamenei on Thursday confirms his approval of the deal and emphasizes that the deal’s authors have accepted responsibility for it, an apparent effort to distance himself from the consequences of the deal’s unraveling.
“In principle, I had a different view. However, in light of the commitment given to me by (chief negotiator Mohammad Berger Ghalibaf) to protect the rights of the Iranian state and the resistance front, and in view of the clear recognition of his responsibility on behalf of other members, I approved it,” the message said.
One of the important reasons for Paidali’s acceptance of the agreement is its influence on the streets. The group demonstrated an ability to mobilize civilians, organizing supporters to take to the streets throughout the war. Vali Nasr said the Paidaris found a receptive audience among poor, religiously conservative Iranians, who have felt the war most acutely. These sectors of the Iranian population will be key to selling peace within the country.
Experts say much of the deal’s success depends on economic relief promised to Iranians. Opening the strait is a key element of the deal, but what Iran and its government need is immediate economic relief and sanctions relief. Iran’s economic situation is dire, and the government must demonstrate tangible benefits from the deal as well as its previous policies to address concerns that have sparked economic and anti-government protests.
While the U.S.-Iran deal reduces Iran’s external military threat, it “does not resolve economic, political or social grievances within Iran, nor does it guarantee lasting peace,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House think tank in London.
Ultimately, public support for the deal will depend on whether “the deal improves everyday life,” she said.
Support for the deal depends on whether it will lead to domestic cultural freedoms and economic benefits, something Nasr says the new supreme leader and the Revolutionary Guards are keenly aware of.
“They don’t want to go back to the situation in January with their people. There was a honeymoon during the war, they could control the streets, people might accept certain sacrifices, but it can’t be sustained indefinitely. So even if the deal gives them economic leverage, the question is how long they can maintain it and can they expand it,” he said.
Meanwhile, ordinary Iranians like Reza, 45, say they are exhausted.
“Sure, the deal sounds like a good thing, but honestly, I don’t have the energy to do that. First the genocide, then the war, and now are they friends?” he said, referring to Iran and the United States.
Other Iranians interviewed by CNN echoed Reza’s sentiments. A sense of whiplash, disillusionment, and hopelessness seems to permeate the conversation.
Fatih, who lives in Tehran, said he hopes the agreement will lead to some changes.
“If I can make money, run a business, and live a life that’s more than just surviving, that’s fine. I embrace that,” she says.
