Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has declared that diplomacy with the United States achieved results that military action ultimately could not, as Tehran works to present a newly signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Washington as a strategic success rather than a concession born of necessity.
Ghalibaf, who serves as speaker of the Iranian parliament, said Iran had taken a "great step toward final victory" through the negotiations. His endorsement carries particular weight because he is not associated with the moderate political current of President Masoud Pezeshkian, whose administration led the talks — suggesting the deal enjoys backing from influential centres of power within the Islamic Republic, including circles linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Pezeshkian described the agreement as potentially transformative, saying that if fully implemented it could help resolve many of Iran's problems and open the door to a "different world" for Iran and the Middle East. Ghalibaf also suggested that a last-minute Israeli strike on Beirut, aimed at derailing the MOU before it was signed, had the unintended effect of prompting US President Donald Trump to move decisively in support of the deal.
The official narrative, however, faces internal resistance. A deputy chair of parliament's national security committee, known for hardline positions, reportedly described a draft of the agreement as a document that would turn Iran into an "American colony," and accused negotiators of ignoring Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's guidance not to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to navigation. Hardliners in parliament and state-aligned media have long argued that the United States cannot be trusted, pointing to the fact that diplomatic channels were still open shortly before the outbreak of hostilities as evidence that Washington used talks as cover while preparing for military action. Notably, however, these critical voices appear to have grown quieter in recent days — a possible sign that the decision to proceed with the deal received approval from the highest levels of the state.
The economic dimension is central to understanding why the agreement moved forward. War, sanctions, disruptions to maritime shipping, reduced access to oil markets, and high inflation have placed severe pressure on ordinary Iranian households. US Vice President JD Vance stated that Iran would receive no American taxpayer funds, but that Tehran could gain access to billions of dollars if it meets its commitments and sanctions are eased — giving Iran's leadership a potential avenue to frame the deal as a path to investment and reconstruction rather than dependence on Washington. Full details of the MOU have not yet been published, and negotiations on the most complex outstanding issues — including the future of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, permissible enrichment levels, verification mechanisms, sanctions relief, the Strait of Hormuz, and Lebanon — are expected to continue in Switzerland.
A significant source of uncertainty surrounds Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected reports of an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, insisting forces will remain as long as necessary. Trump publicly criticised Israeli conduct in Lebanon, saying too many people had been killed, and expressed displeasure at the Beirut strike that nearly derailed the Iran-US deal — while maintaining that his relationship with Netanyahu remained strong. For Tehran, this visible tension between Washington and Tel Aviv can be presented as evidence of Iranian leverage; at the same time, it makes the agreement more fragile. If Israel continues operations in Lebanon and Washington proves unable to restrain it, Iran will face early pressure to respond, testing its claim that Lebanon is covered by the MOU. For many Iranians, the measure of the deal's success will not be found in official slogans but in whether the fighting stops, prices fall, and sanctions ease.