What are Iran's Hardliners Thinking?

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Iran’s other top negotiators are set to meet leaders of the P5+1 countries in Vienna on June 30 to reach a final deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

As the deadline approaches, Iran’s hardliners have begun pushing for negotiators to stand firm and only accept what they describe as a “good” deal.

It signals a shift for the conservative, anti-Rouhani camp — a departure from its insistence that Iran remain defiant against almost any deal — and echoed a speech given by Ayatollah Khamenei’s on June 24. The speech came a day after 213 MPs voted for a “nuclear bill” that called for parliament to play a key role in approving any outcome. Among those calling for an appropriate deal were MP Hamid Resaee, writing in his weekly 9 Dey, and the newspaper Vatan-e Emrouz, known for its critical stance toward the Rouhani administration.

But just what do hardliners mean? What do they view as an acceptable deal for Iran? And do these demands suggest a longer-term strategy?

Hardliner website Rajaei News set out the possible scenarios: 1) A final agreement by the June 30 deadline; 2) a few days’ extension (seven to 10 days) to reach an agreement; or 3) a longer extension, setting the final deadline a few months before the Iranian parliamentary elections in February 2016. Failure was not an option, the site concluded: “There is no chance that negotiators will reach a dead end."

On June 27, hardliner daily Kayhan outlined the basics of a good deal: “Under no circumstances will it allow the other side to inspect military sites and to interrogate our nuclear scientists. All sanctions, related to nuclear and non-nuclear issues, must be lifted once an agreement is reached. Lifting the sanctions will not be dependent on Iran fulfilling any obligations.” It also said that an agreement will not be held up by a pending report by the  International Atomic Energy Agency, and that Iran must not agree to any “long-term limitations.”

The site said its definition of a good deal was in line with what Ayatollah Khamenei outlined in his speech."All the economic, financial and banking sanctions, no matter whether they are related to the Security Council or the US Congress or the US administration, should be immediately terminated when the agreement is endorsed,” Khamenei said.

A number of hardliner media outlets quoted the speech, with hardliner Resaee praising what he called “Leader of the Revolution’s determination to save the government from the trap of a bad agreement” in 9 Dey on June 27. Other websites and newspapers published detailed lists of sanctions that, in their view, must be lifted, which include UN Security Council resolutions, sanctions imposed by the European Union and the United States, and, most importantly, sanctions introduced by US Congress.

Praising the so-called “nuclear bill” passed in parliament on June 23, the Nuclear Iran website, managed by Mehdi Mohammadi, a member of the nuclear negotiating team under former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said parliament had been victorious in “banning a bad agreement”.

But Kayhan chose to ignore one key part of the Supreme Leader’s address, where he said that some sanctions could be lifted at “rational intervals.”

The problem is, of course, that these demands will not be met. Sanctions will not be lifted immediately, particularly the sanctions imposed by US Congress.

Downplaying the Positive to Destabilize Rouhani

In addition to its focus on the timeframe for lifting sanctions, conservative media have also reported widely on the long-term consequences of the nuclear deal.

Any push for a 10-year deal was bad for Iran, wrote Mehdi Mohammadi in an editorial for the newspaper Vatan-e Emrouz, and was designed to “transform the revolutionary nature of the Islamic Republic.” If the deal fails, he said, “the United States would be under no obligation to live with a nuclear and revolutionary Iran.”

It is a simple and familiar hardliner tactic: Downplay any positive results that could emerge from a nuclear deal, whether economic, security-related, political, or diplomatic, particularly if these benefits are articulated by the United States or other enemies, who are, they say, known for “exaggerating” the benefits for ordinary citizens. Then remind the public of the importance of protecting Iran’s scientific and technological achievements and future progress.

On Saturday, June 27, Nuclear Iran warned that the final agreement might be published as a draft only, without the signatures of the two sides. This, it said, would be a tactical move on behalf of the United States. If a deal fails to materialize, the website said, the US will want to make it look as if it is Iran’s fault for not agreeing to specific points — and would present any failure as an economic disaster for the people of Iran.

Other hardliner media have taken the opportunity to undermine the economic benefits of a deal. That a deal would result in any real improvement for Iranians is an “illusion,” “without prospects” and “of no real consequence,” they said.

But these attacks are not simply about what happens in Vienna. They are part of a wider strategy to destabilize Rouhani and his administration.

“If there is agreement, the government will find itself in a more difficult situation than ever,” said hardliner analyst Parviz Amini in an interview published in Vatan-e Emrouz last week. “When sanctions are lifted, everybody will want to see what happens with the economy and jobs. At that point, the government will no longer be able to blame any outside factors. The government will be responsible for everything.” He said that official figures provided by the government and presented by the Speaker of Parliament, Ali Larijani — who he described as a “nuclear-political partner of Rouhani” — show sanctions have only been effective “by 20 to 30 percent.”  In this scenario, Amini said, “not only will the problems of the government not be solved, they will double in size.”

Nuclear Iran’s editorial is a reminder of just where hardliner anxieties are focused: If a deal fails, it says, and the US succeeds in persuading the world that it is Iran’s fault, “the Western-oriented movement in Iran will be mobilized to create social pressures.” This, it says, will increase the political, financial and cultural costs of failing to reach an agreement, suggesting that the nuclear deal has potential consequences for Iranian society, beyond economics and technological advances.

Iran’s hardliners are not necessarily expecting negotiations to fail. But they are anticipating that they can use whatever outcome against Rouhani. Whatever happens in Vienna, they have a plan: To clear out the moderates from Iranian politics, and to uphold what they see as true Islamic values and Iran's "revolutionary nature."

Related articles:

Hardliners Push for New Law as Nuclear Talks Reach Deadline

Nuclear Deal Makes Hardliners Panic

Tempers Flare as Nuclear Battle Continues

Hardliners in Final Bid to Sabotage Nuclear Deal

To read more stories like this, sign up to our weekly email. 

This was originally published on June 29.