Why ceasefire deal with US has unsettled Iran’s hardliners
Why ceasefire deal with US has unsettled Iran’s hardliners
Iran’s strategic move to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, once a symbol of defiance, has sparked tension within its political elite. Days prior, hardline factions in Tehran had prominently displayed a massive banner at a bustling crossroads, declaring, “The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed.” This statement was interpreted as a directive from the newly appointed Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who had taken a backseat since assuming the role. However, the agreement to a two-week pause in hostilities, facilitated by Pakistan’s mediation, has led to the banner’s potential removal.
The decision followed Iran’s acceptance of a temporary ceasefire request from Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his military chief. Despite Iran’s insistence on a permanent end to the conflict with the US and Israel, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the country’s highest decision-making body, opted for a compromise. This body, operating under the new supreme leader, includes President Masoud Pezeshkian, a more centrist figure than his predecessor.
Hardliners, who had celebrated Iran’s capacity to disrupt Gulf nations through missile and drone strikes, now express frustration. They argue that the country should have continued its military campaign while in a stronger position. Reports indicate that some of these figures took to the streets late at night, marching to the foreign ministry and burning US and Israeli flags in protest.
“Agreeing to the ceasefire was a gift to the enemy,” wrote an editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, reflecting the discontent among conservative factions.
China is believed to have played a key role in persuading Iran to accept Pakistan’s proposal. The 40-day war had already caused significant damage, with over 3,000 casualties reported by human rights groups. US President Donald Trump had previously threatened to escalate the conflict further. The SNSC, however, emphasized that the temporary pause would allow safe passage through the Strait in exchange for a ceasefire, as negotiations with Washington proceed.
Notably, the new leader has permitted direct talks with the US, a departure from the previous policy. This shift is evident in the appointment of Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to lead Iran’s delegation in talks with US Vice President JD Vance in Islamabad. Such a move signals a softening of the hardline stance that had dominated prior diplomatic efforts.
Despite the ceasefire, the broader conflict between Iran and the US remains unresolved. If the ongoing negotiations falter, hostilities could reignite. Some supporters of the war, viewing it as a means to challenge what they see as an oppressive regime, may welcome this possibility. For others, the temporary truce offers a much-needed reprieve from the ongoing violence and devastation.