More than 40 years ago, after months of setbacks in Saddam Hussein’s war with Iraq, thousands of young Iranian troops launched a surprise attack that turned the tide.
But then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini wanted more than just cementing his victory. It was to overthrow the Iraqi dictator, who had growing support from Washington, and to demonstrate to future enemies that a war with Iran would be costly.
The Iraq conflict was a pivotal moment in the formation of the modern Iranian state. President Khomeini’s decision turned it into a six-year war of attrition in which hundreds of thousands of people died, making it one of the bloodiest conflicts in the region’s modern history. Now, several years later, Iran is once again faced with the question of whether to proceed with the deal or abandon it.
The revolutionaries who led the attack control the seats of power in Tehran. For them, the current war between the United States and Israel, like the war with Iraq, is an imposed war, the outcome of which does not depend on which side is the most powerful, but on which side endures. More moderates, on the other hand, see an opportunity to consolidate gains in Iran negotiations, which have made little progress.
The impasse has left the Islamic Republic bitterly divided after six months of civil war, and its ultimate arbiter, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, remains in hiding.
Politicians competing with the Iranian government have publicly claimed that Iran won the war.
But deep ideological divisions remain over what a victory for the Islamic Republic should look like.
On one side stand the pragmatists and technocrats, led by President Massoud Pezeshkian, National Assembly Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and Foreign Minister Abbas Aragushi.
They point to the war-torn economy, the debilitating US naval blockade, and the damage to the nation’s infrastructure in favor of a definitive agreement.
They have publicly warned that the window to resolve the conflict from a position of strength is closing. They represent the Iranian people who believe ending the 47-year conflict with Washington is the surest way to ease the domestic crisis, break global isolation and preserve the Islamic republic’s survival.
“The war has to end someday,” Pezeshkian said this month. “It would be better to end it today while we remain strong and dignified and the whole world recognizes our victory.”
On the other side stand hardline conservatives. Their ideology centers on distrust of Washington, which they see as bent on destroying the Islamic Republic. For more than half a century, they have warned against America’s intentions, but now Trump’s wars have vindicated them against their moderate opponents.
They also accuse current officials of being “Western-minded” and trying to influence public opinion toward a deal by exaggerating domestic issues.
“They see the United States as a very untrustworthy actor, and they’ve been burned many times by President Trump himself, so they think exactly the same thing will happen again,” Sanam Baqir, head of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House think tank in London, told CNN.
“In their minds, they think they won by not losing[the war]and they’re not only trying to get a favorable deal from Washington to win, but they’re also looking for internal longevity in their competition with their adversaries.”
They see Mr. Pezeshkian as a weak president who took office by chance after his hard-line predecessor died in a helicopter crash. And by signing the cease-fire agreement in June alongside Trump’s, he was further ostracized and his campaign was held responsible for the economic collapse and failure to reach an agreement with the United States.
The rifts are so deep that hard-liners accuse authorities of deliberately mishandling the economic crisis in order to pressure a weary public into accepting a deal. Some say the government engineered the fuel shortage to make a deal inevitable, while others go further and accuse moderates of staging a coup.
“Economically, are we really in an impasse, or are we just predicting an impasse?” asked hardline lawmaker Mohammad Mannan Raisi. “Everything is blamed on the war, but not everything is related to the war.”
Hardliners point to the failures of previous agreements with the United States, including the 2015 nuclear deal signed with the Obama administration and later abandoned by President Trump, and that the United States attacked the Islamic Republic twice during negotiations.
This camp is betting on the Islamic Republic’s staying power, arguing that its policy of confrontation, backed by regional armed proxies, missiles, drones and Shiite religious beliefs, has protected the country more effectively than the diplomacy championed by “Western-minded” politicians.
“Hardliners have concluded that no deal can be reached with President Trump, and we are probably just living between two wars,” Baqir said. “They think they can wear President Trump down and weaken him by prolonging the economic pain.”
One hardline lawmaker said those advocating a deal with the United States were opposed to former supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who was killed in a U.S. and Israeli attack early in the war.
“They want to prepare public opinion to accept an agreement and a humiliating peace,” Kamran Ghazanfali told Congress on Thursday, referring to those who support diplomacy with the United States.
“But the enemy has shown time and time again that no matter how much we concede, no matter how far we retreat before him, he will never be satisfied and will continue to demand something else from us, and will settle for nothing short of our complete surrender.”
As Iranian pragmatists play a high-stakes poker game with the United States, hardliners’ warnings against a deal with the United States are gaining momentum as President Trump’s strategy remains shaky and his commitment to a potential deal unclear.
“Trump is not helping. He says he wants to make Iran great again, he threatens Iran with his next tweet, and he is fanning the flames of paranoia within the Iranian regime,” Baqir said.
Conservatives, who control newspapers, national television, street protesters and military supporters, believe Trump is using diplomacy to prepare for new military action, she said, adding that Trump “betrays conservatives every time” he “walks the diplomatic path” with Trump.
Mojtaba Khamenei remains silent amidst the division. As he strives to maintain legitimacy, he appears to understand that choosing sides in negotiations with Trump, who lacks credibility, could damage his presidency.
On Friday, he praised the government’s performance under pressure but urged authorities to address the country’s weaknesses without mentioning them publicly, warning that doing so could embolden Iran’s enemies and demoralize allies.
With no one to restrain them, hardliners are pushing ahead with their campaign against the deal.
“Our martyred Imam (Ali Khamenei) warned them dozens of times, but why can’t they understand?” Ghazanfali said of his domestic opponents. “They speak in a way that suggests nothing but surrender and surrender.”
Additional report by Karimi Aida
