Can Iranians cheer Team Melli without cheering the state?

“We welcome the announcement of a deal between the United States and Iran, secured under the strong leadership of President Trump, with the support of mediating countries,” the leaders said in a statement on geopolitical issues.

They said the agreement provided “an historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring any nuclear weapon and tackling the threats related to its regional and ballistic activities.”

“We support and are ready to contribute to its implementation,” the statement said.

The Group of Seven also backed further diplomacy after the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, saying any follow-on negotiation should address threats posed by Iran “in the region and beyond” and include relevant partners, including the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“We reaffirm that Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon,” the leaders said.

100%

On Lebanon, the G7 tied its support to an immediate ceasefire and the disarmament of Iran-backed Hezbollah.

“In Lebanon, we support, through an immediate robust ceasefire, the Lebanese leadership’s efforts to achieve the disarmament of Hezbollah and the monopoly of arms, and to protect Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty with the appropriate international security guarantees,” the statement said.

The leaders also backed the resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, saying “the right of transit passage without restrictions or tolls is the bedrock of international trade.”

They said a multinational defensive initiative led by France and the UK could help protect merchant vessels, reassure shipping operators and verify the removal of mines.

The G7 also pledged to reduce global vulnerability to the Strait of Hormuz by accelerating the diversification of energy supply routes and increasing energy stocks.

The MoU is expected to be formally signed on Friday and followed by 60 days of talks aimed at reaching a final deal, leaving many Iranians torn between relief over the end of fighting, hope for sanctions relief, anger over years of delay, and distrust of both Tehran and Washington.

Regime supporters say Iran forced concessions

Some government supporters argued that Iran emerged from the conflict without losing territory and succeeded in compelling its adversaries to accept its demands through resistance.

A review of public comments posted in response to a Khabar Online survey on reactions to the end of the war showed both pride and anger among users.

One user wrote that they were “very happy” about the end of the war while also feeling “a sense of pride.”

That view was quickly challenged by others. Responding to the comment, another user wrote: “Exactly what is there to be proud of? The destruction of military and technical infrastructure? Crushing inflation that is breaking people's backs? Or the fact that countries in the region are no longer willing to maintain relations with Iran? What pride are you talking about?”

Another user was even more critical, writing: “They struck our leader and senior officials. Several layers of leadership were hit from top to bottom. Our skies had become a thoroughfare for Israel and the United States. I am not proud of this situation.”

Relief mixed with anxiety

Many users said they welcomed the end of the fighting but remained pessimistic about the future or fearful that war could erupt again.

Responding to Khabar Online, one user wrote: “I am happy the war is over, but I do not have an encouraging outlook for the future.”

The user added that prospects would remain bleak as long as some groups could freely gather in the streets under the protection of security forces and express their views, while criticism of government policies by others was treated as opposition to the entire political system and met with “insults, reprimands, prison, and torture.”

Another user described their feelings as “a measure of calm accompanied by anxiety about another war in the future.”

Some users expressed hopes that a final agreement and the lifting of sanctions could improve living conditions.

Dorna Afshinfar wrote on X: “If a final agreement is reached and sanctions are lifted, what changes do you expect to see? I expect dramatic falls in the prices of essential goods such as rice, meat, chicken, dairy products, and fruit; sharp declines in housing, dollar, and gold prices; medicines and healthcare becoming much cheaper; the arrival of new airplanes, buses, and ships; and lower ticket prices for all of them.”

Critics say the deal came too late

A recurring theme among users was criticism of the government for resisting negotiations with Washington for years before eventually returning to the negotiating table after a costly conflict.

One user named Mojtaba wrote on X: “After all this war and misery, we are back to nuclear negotiations again. My God, what sin did we commit that negotiations never leave us Iranians alone?”

He added: “If you were going to make all these concessions, you should have accepted them from the beginning and not let people be crushed under the burden of inflation.”

The same user accused officials of ruining lives through years of insistence on the nuclear issue, writing: “You destroyed people's lives through all these years of absurd insistence on nuclear energy. Now you have accepted it. You should have made a rational decision from the start. I feel bitter that my past, present, and lost youth have been wasted.”

Another user wrote: “What do we feel? We feel inflation, helplessness, and a lost future. Why did you choose this path from the beginning, create all this damage, and then return to where you started? Why all these costs and wasted opportunities?”

Opposition lashes out at Trump

Many opponents of the Islamic Republic reacted angrily to Washington's decision to reach an agreement with Tehran, saying they felt abandoned by President Donald Trump and his administration.

One user wrote on X: “Shame on Trump for making a deal with the killers of 50,000 martyrs.”

Another user, referring to reports that Trump prevented Israel from targeting Ali Khamenei during the 12-day war in 2025, said: “This agreement is a betrayal of the Iranian people. They told us not to come out into the streets until the right time arrived, but it never came. Why did they not allow Khamenei to be targeted during the 12-day war? There are many other questions that I know will never be answered. They played with our blood.”

Yet another user wrote: “Forty thousand martyrs are the light that guides us, and avenging them remains our goal. Whether America wants it or not, whether it makes a deal or not, what matters is what the people of Iran want.”

Others insisted that the opposition movement would continue regardless of diplomatic developments.

“One way or another, they will reach an agreement and remain in power, but we will still be here. We will confront them in the streets. We swear by the blood of the slain that we will not go back,” one user wrote on X.

Another added: “Despite this agreement, I have never been more certain that this regime will fall. We have a king, and we will stand by our king and our flag until the end. We will reclaim Iran ourselves.”

Hardliners reject negotiations

Hardline government supporters who oppose any negotiations with the United States and believe the conflict should continue until the defeat of the United States and Israel also expressed anger at the agreement.

In recent days, hardline demonstrators have chanted slogans such as “Death to the compromisers,” “What happened to the blood of the martyred Leader?” and “We do not accept the agreement.” They have also launched a campaign under the slogan “We Do Not Accept” in an effort to halt the deal.

Videos and posts circulating on social media appeared to show security forces trying to prevent some of these gatherings and, in some cases, using force against demonstrators in Tehran and Mashhad. Iran International could not independently verify the footage or the circumstances.

Among the posts shared on X was one by Mohammad-Taher Rahimi, who wrote: “May the hand be cut off of anyone who shakes hands with the killers of the martyred Imam and poses for a commemorative photograph with them.”

A hardline user named Mehrdad wrote: “After the enemy gains access to uranium, we will enter a difficult existential war. Do not forget that Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian paved the way for this conflict.”

Another user, Hessam Mahmoudi, argued that Iran's uranium stockpile was a key deterrent. “The enemy needed to destroy missile cities with tactical nuclear bombs to force Iran's surrender. The only thing stopping them was uranium. If we give up our uranium stockpile or destroy it, next time they will do something unprecedented to us.”

A user posting under the name Bi Behnam on X wrote: “Let me be very clear. Trump's primary and ultimate goal in accepting this agreement is to remove Iran's uranium reserves. After that, the rest of the path will not be difficult for him. The moment the reserves are handed over or diluted, they will come down on Iran in a way that will become a lesson for history.”

The public anger from some regime supporters has exposed real divisions within Iran’s political and media establishment. But those divisions appear to be less about whether to preserve the Islamic Republic than about how best to preserve it.

That is the assessment of several Iran experts who spoke to Iran International following the announcement of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding.

Hardliners protest the deal

Much of the dissent appears to be coming from the hardline Paydari Front, which sees itself as a guardian of the values of the 1979 revolution that established the Islamic Republic. The faction has long opposed engagement with the West and advocates a more ideological vision of the state rooted in Shia Islamist principles.

Ahead of the signing of the MoU, prominent hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian warned that accepting the agreement would effectively turn Iran into “a colony of the United States.” He also criticized provisions related to the Strait of Hormuz, arguing they would amount to surrendering one of Iran’s most important strategic levers.

The rhetoric spilled into the streets. At rallies in Tehran over the weekend, protesters called for the resignations of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Some invoked the memory of the late Supreme Leader, chanting: “Ghalibaf, Araghchi — what about my Leader’s blood?”

Some went even further, calling for their death and execution.

Opponents of the deal have also launched a “we will not accept” campaign.

The question now is whether these internal fractures could eventually weaken a system that, while more resilient than many anticipated, remains under significant strain. For now, experts say the divisions do not appear sufficient to break the system from within.

“The hardliners are loud, but they have a weak case to make,” said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

“This regime has now proven beyond doubt that they’re much more entrenched and resilient than people thought they were. That doesn’t make them nice, just makes them harder adversaries.”

Survival over ideology

Arash Azizi, an Iran analyst and author of What Iranians Want: Women, Life, Freedom, argues that the Islamic Republic is shifting from ideological hardliners toward a more pragmatic — though still authoritarian — collective leadership focused on regime survival.

“They are authoritarian and they’re thugs, to be clear. But they care about keeping their own economic interests, which means social peace as much as they can, and which means deals with the US,” Azizi told Iran International.

In other words, the Islamic Republic is not moderating. It is acting pragmatically — and, as Azizi argues, cynically — to survive.

According to Azizi, the hardliners around Saeed Jalili are important precisely because they have revealed their weakness. They loudly opposed the deal but appear unable to stop it.

Real power, he argues, lies with a collective leadership centered around Ghalibaf, the IRGC leadership and the Supreme National Security Council. That leadership appears to view a deal with Washington as necessary to protect the system.

The deal’s progress, despite Mojtaba Khamenei’s continued absence from public view, has fueled speculation that a new power structure may be consolidating inside the Islamic Republic.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, notes that such divisions are not new.

Similar opposition emerged during the 2013–2015 negotiations that led to the JCPOA, when hardliners attacked then-President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

“The Supreme Leader made a decision, and that’s going to carry the day,” Brodsky said.

But Brodsky argues the real struggle may begin if sanctions relief materializes.

“There will be those who want to use resources toward economic rebuilding, but there will be a very hardened IRGC contingent ... who are going to want to rebuild their military, rebuild the nuclear program, and rebuild the terror apparatus.”

Media split reflects political divide

Iran’s media landscape reflects the same tensions.

Hardline newspaper Kayhan has denounced the MoU as surrender to the United States. Khorasan has framed it as a temporary pause rather than peace. Hamshahri has argued that diplomacy was made possible by Iran’s military deterrence.

Meanwhile, reformist and moderate outlets such as Shargh, Etemad and Khabar Online have presented the agreement as a state-backed effort to end the war, ease economic pressure and stabilize the country.

Some supporters of the deal have gone further, arguing that the agreement is superior to the 2015 nuclear accord because Iran has retained strategic leverage, including influence over the Strait of Hormuz.

Government supporters have also pushed back against the Paydari Front, arguing it does not represent ordinary Iranians, many of whom have grown weary of war and economic hardship.

Taken together, the reactions suggest that few inside Iran view the MoU as a peace agreement.

Instead, supporters and critics alike largely see it as a mechanism for preserving the Islamic Republic, though they disagree sharply on what kind of compromise would best serve that goal.

For hardliners, the agreement risks being remembered as a retreat from revolutionary principles. For pragmatists inside the establishment, it is a necessary concession aimed at keeping the system intact.

The domestic battle over the MoU may ultimately prove just as consequential as the negotiations themselves.

Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not yet commented on the announcement. President Masoud Pezeshkian, however, welcomed the development in a post on X, saying that if all provisions of the memorandum are implemented correctly, it could become "a source of pride for the country."

Pezeshkian said that an overwhelming majority of members of Iran's Supreme National Security Council had approved the text so that "America's genuine commitment to respecting the rights of the Iranian nation could be tested in practice."

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also served as Iran's chief negotiator, struck a triumphant tone. In a message posted on X, he wrote that despite efforts by those who sought "to destroy the Iranian nation and force the country into submission, Iran had taken a major step toward final victory."

He added: "They wanted to, but they could not."

Judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei also praised the outcome, saying the Islamic Republic had demonstrated "dignified and revolutionary diplomacy."

The announcement had an immediate impact on Iran's financial markets. The value of the US dollar and other foreign currencies, as well as digital assets such as Tether and gold prices, dropped following the news. Tehran's stock market also reacted positively when trading resumed on Monday.

Lawmakers split over agreement

Some members of parliament welcomed the reported memorandum.

Rouhollah Lak-Aliabadi told the conservative Tabnak news website that one of the memorandum's positive aspects was that “contrary to Washington's initial demands, there is no discussion of limiting the country's missile capabilities." He claimed that even American officials now speak of continued uranium enrichment "within specified frameworks."

"This shows that the Islamic Republic's military strength has been able to influence the course of negotiations," he said.

Hossein Samsami, a member of parliament affiliated with the hardline Paydari Front, argued that nuclear and regional negotiations are not permissible and that any future talks should serve only to buy time so that the country's deterrence capabilities can be strengthened.

In a post on X, he wrote that he follows the Supreme Leader's directives, but that his expert assessment differs.

This position was criticized by Lak-Aliabadi, who told Tabnak: "For someone to declare that even if the Leader supports a decision, he will still oppose it, is fundamentally unacceptable."

Hardline lawmaker Amirhossein Sabeti described the agreement as "hasty and weak," claiming it violated the Supreme Leader's red lines and reflected a "miscalculation" by officials.

According to Sabeti, "This agreement reflects the capabilities and understanding of the country's senior officials under current circumstances, not the satisfaction of the Supreme Leader." He further argued that the deal "will neither bring economic relief nor guarantee the country's security."

Mahmoud Nabavian, another hardline parliamentarian associated with the Paydari Front, called on authorities to provide the public with a detailed report on implementation of the memorandum, including provisions concerning the lifting of maritime restrictions, oil and petrochemical exports, banking and insurance services, and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

The hardline Raja News website criticized what it called an agreement with "the killer of the Leader," referring to US President Donald Trump, and questioned the lack of publicly available details regarding Iran's commitments under the memorandum.

Controversies over timing

Some hardliners also objected to the timing of the announcement. Because the news broke after midnight in Iran, while it was still June 14 in Washington — Trump's birthday — critics portrayed it as a symbolic gift to the US president.

Conservative journalist Parisa Nasr wrote: "Couldn't they have waited a few more hours until June 14 had passed in Washington before trumpeting the Iran-US peace agreement? Was giving a birthday gift to the killer of the martyred Leader also one of the unwritten conditions of the deal?"

Ahmad Qadiri, a hardline activist and researcher of international law, argued that Iran had obtained only promises while "what Trump has gained immediately is Iran's loss of credibility among the resistance front, lower oil prices, and having the agreement announced on his birthday."

Reformists and moderates welcome move

Several prominent reformist and centrist figures endorsed the reported agreement.

Former president Mohammad Khatami and former foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif, who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear agreement, both expressed support. In a statement, Khatami described acceptance of the memorandum as "a major and courageous step" and said that it was something "to be genuinely pleased about."

Reformist journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi offered a more measured assessment. Writing on his Telegram channel, he argued that the memorandum represented neither the surrender of one side nor the complete victory of the other.

"It is, like every other phenomenon, the ultimate result of the balance of power between the parties," he wrote, warning that absolutist interpretations favoring either side could complicate future negotiations aimed at reaching a final agreement.

The news website Rouydad24 described the current arrangement as "a major geopolitical ceasefire and a preliminary non-proliferation agreement" rather than a lasting peace settlement.

"Iranian diplomacy must now move from the phase of containing war to consolidating achievements and achieving the durable removal of sanctions — a marathon in which wisdom, domestic cohesion and avoiding unnecessary extremism are the first conditions for success," the report said.

In a commentary for Asr-e Iran, journalist Reza Ghibishavi argued that the end of the conflict could mark a historic turning point for the country.

"From Monday morning, with the official end of the war and the end of abnormal conditions, Iran enters a new era," he wrote. "A new Iran with a new leader, new circumstances, new experiences, a new society, a new region, a new agreement, a new America, and a new world. None of them will return to the past."

Seymour said Wellington condemned the Islamic Republic’s conduct toward its neighbors, its support for militant groups in the Middle East its activities close to New Zealand as Australia.

“There is no question that we believe this is an evil regime,” Seymour said. “We condemn their actions toward their neighbors, the sponsorship of terrorism throughout the Middle East and as near as Australia, and we especially condemn their behavior toward the Iranian people.”

He said New Zealand had not yet designated the IRGC in part because it still maintained diplomatic relations with Tehran, including an Iranian ambassador in Wellington, while New Zealand’s embassy in Iran was temporarily closed.

“Those connections can be of value,” he said. “There is some value in the connection and that’s why we have maintained our stance despite the fact that we condemn the behavior and actions of the government of Iran.”

Seymour said New Zealand’s police and intelligence agencies were “very aware” of the IRGC’s activities and were monitoring them.

“The New Zealand government and its various agencies, the police, intelligence agencies, have as a priority monitoring and controlling the IRGC and particularly protecting Iranian nationals who have become New Zealanders and make their home here,” he said.

He said he had personally discussed the issue with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, adding that the government was not currently considering further action beyond the possible terrorist designation.

Seymour also referred to a recent joint statement by New Zealand and 21 other countries condemning the Islamic Republic’s extraterritorial actions.

“We signed that letter because we and the 21 other state parties have a set of values,” he said. “We should trade value for value, voluntarily get stronger together through mutually beneficial voluntary trade rather than use violence to achieve our aims.”

He added: “That is why we condemn this regime, its behavior both inside and outside Iran.”

Seymour called the Islamic Republic’s treatment of protesters “absolutely disgraceful and disgusting,” and said the Iranian government would not endure.

“I believe the time will come when they are no longer sustainable,” he said. “They will no longer be in power because Persia has a beautiful 5,000-year history.”

He added: “The greatness of that place will not be ended by this regime. They will become a footnote in a long history of a great civilization.”

Seymour also paid tribute to the “forty-thousand freedom fighters” killed earlier this year, saying Iranians seeking freedom would ultimately prevail.

“Living freely, with dignity, safe from violence, is the only way that anybody in the world has ever been able to reach their potential,” he said. “Over time, inevitably, you will succeed because you are right and they are wrong.”