Iranian hardliners call for NPT withdrawal, ramp up pressure on Pezeshkian over negotiations with US

The Paydari Front’s latest push marks an escalation in Iran’s ongoing domestic power struggle between moderates and centrists, who seek a swift end to the conflict to salvage Iran’s crumbling economy, and hardliners who insist Washington only understands force. The hardliners have held nightly rallies in major cities for the past 200 days, initially to protest the US war but now evolving into organised protests against diplomatic efforts, with slogans including 'No compromise, no surrender, the fight against America' and 'Negotiating with the enemy is a betrayal of the homeland'.

Amirhossein Sabeti, a member of parliament aligned with the Paydari Front, said in a statement that negotiations with the US will not begin unless Washington’s siege on Iran’s southern ports or sanctions end. 'The enemy’s objective of destroying Iran has not changed. It is simply waiting for the right moment to launch another surprise attack. Those who thought negotiations could prevent war, or that the United States would lift sanctions through negotiations, did not understand how the world works and were deluding themselves,' Sabeti said. 'The only language the world understands is the language of power.'

The political faction has also filed a motion in parliament to impeach Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi following his visit to New York for the UN General Assembly in September, where he condemned the US war but extolled diplomacy. Parliament is also considering a law to criminalise interviews with foreign media outlets.

Davood Heshmati, a journalist considered close to Pezeshkian, told Al Jazeera that there are signs US forces have abandoned the grand ambition of overthrowing the Iranian government and adopted more modest aims, making a diplomatic solution more likely. 'There are several ways to achieve those other goals, one of which is war. But, in any case, to prevent a war, all alternatives to military action must first be tested. Negotiations and a diplomatic agreement are among those alternatives, and they should always take precedence over war,' Heshmati said. He argued that those who say the Strait of Hormuz must not be reopened are people who believe the war must not end, and that the anti-negotiation camp seems to expect the US to simply walk away after several rounds of fighting, which he said is not consistent with the logic of the conflict.

Political analyst Negar Mortazavi said hardliners are a powerful domestic force with limited influence over foreign policy. 'Iran’s hardliners are not a marginal political force. They are a well-organised and deeply entrenched part of [Iran’s] political establishment. Their strength lies in their ability to mobilise supporters, shape political discourse, pressure the government, and raise the political cost of diplomacy,' she said. 'But political influence should not be confused with ultimate decision-making authority. Decisions about war, peace, and negotiations are made at the highest levels of Iran’s leadership and national security establishment.' She noted that hardliners can threaten and obstruct but cannot prevent an agreement backed by key powerholders such as Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council. Mortazavi pointed to past nuclear agreements as evidence that hardliners were unable to stop diplomacy when decisions were made above their heads.

The delay in scheduling the foreign minister’s impeachment hearing and continued diplomatic engagement with mediators suggest the moderate camp remains a force to be reckoned with.