Iran power centers signal doubt just as talks with the US begin

Government authorities and supporters marked the birthday of the 12th and final Shiite Imam, Mahdi, with widespread street decorations, fireworks at religious sites and city squares, and tents distributing tea, sweets and food to passersby.

State media extensively covered the festivities, while pro-government social media users portrayed public participation as evidence of continued support for the authorities and the country's return to normalcy.

In the days leading up to the public holiday, state-organized celebrations are held not only in religious venues but also across government offices and schools. During this period, authorities, municipalities and private citizens decorate streets with lights and offer sweets and drinks to pedestrians.

This year’s main ceremony took place at the Jamkaran Mosque near the holy city of Qom, where large crowds gathered for fireworks and light displays. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the once-obscure mosque has expanded dramatically into a major pilgrimage and tourist complex.

Widespread opposition to the celebrations

Opposition to the celebrations has come from many who say festivities are inappropriate while millions grieve.

The official death toll from the February 8–9 protests, announced by the government — more than 3,000 people — nearly matches the total number of deaths recorded during the previous monarchy between 1963 and 1979.

An X user identified as Homayoun wrote: “When the state breeds death, theatrical joy is merely the mask of shamelessness. Celebrating over fresh wounds is neither faith nor hope; it is only the habit of witnessing the suffering of others.”

Religious and political figures boycott the festivities

At least two prominent clerics — Grand Ayatollah Asadollah Bayat-Zanjani, a senior religious authority and former reformist politician, and Grand Ayatollah Mostafa Mohaqeq-Damad, an Islamic scholar known for criticizing the state’s harsh response to protesters — announced they would refrain from holding birthday celebrations in solidarity with mourners.

Bayat-Zanjani’s son, Mohsen Bayat-Zanjani, a well-known philanthropist, said on X that his father’s office would cancel its annual event. The Institute for Religious Enlightenment, overseen by Mohaqeq Damad, issued a statement saying he would not host a celebration this year.

Neither cleric has publicly condemned the killings, prompting sharp criticism from some X users, though others praised the move. Hadi Mehrani, a former Iran-Iraq war veteran and ex-political prisoner who now openly supports the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, commended them for “standing with the people and honoring the dead.”

Beyond these two figures, no other senior clerics have been reported to oppose the festivities, and neither cleric explicitly blamed the government for the deaths.

Azar Mansouri, head of the Reform Front, wrote on X: “In the midst of this exhausting collective mourning and the deep wound inflicted on the nation’s soul, what celebration?” Pro-government commenters responded that celebrating the Imam’s birth is obligatory regardless of circumstances.

Historical precedence

Boycotting religious celebrations during periods of mourning has historical precedent in Iran. In July 1978, after dozens of demonstrators were killed in Tehran’s Jaleh Square, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared public mourning and urged people to avoid festivities for Mahdi’s birthday, emphasizing unity in the political struggle.

In 1962, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Golpayegani similarly called for canceling the celebration in protest against the Shah’s “White Revolution” reforms.

Protesters respond with slogans

Citizen journalists have circulated reports of residents chanting slogans from windows during the festivities.

One X user said members of the Basij militia set up a booth in the Chitgar district of western Tehran playing religious music and Quran recitations, prompting apartment residents to shout slogans in opposition. A video posted by the user captured voices chanting “Death to the Islamic Republic” and “Death to the Basij.”

Outside Iran, a group of supporters of exiled prince Reza Pahlavi gathered Tuesday outside the Islamic Centre of Manchester, disrupting a planned Mahdi birthday celebration with chants and protests.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan worked on the framework proposal ahead of the Friday talks, The Times of Israel reported, citing two Middle Eastern diplomats.

The proposal includes a non-aggression pact under which Washington and Tehran would agree not to target one another, the report said, adding that the pact would also cover allies and Iran-backed armed groups in the region.

The framework drafted by the six countries would also address Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles and Iran-backed armed groups, according to the report.

One of the diplomats cited in the report acknowledged that binding Israel to such an agreement would be difficult.

Proposed Iran commitments

Separately, Al Jazeera reported that mediators from Qatar, Turkey and Egypt have presented Iran and the United States with a framework of key principles to be discussed in Friday’s talks, citing two sources familiar with the negotiations.

Under that proposal, Iran would commit to zero uranium enrichment for three years, after which it would limit enrichment to below 1.5 percent, the report said.

Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium — including about 440 kilograms enriched to 60 percent — would be transferred to a third country under the framework, according to the report.

The Al Jazeera report said the proposal also includes a ban on Iran's initiation of ballistic missile attacks and a commitment by Iran not to transfer weapons or technologies to its allied armed groups in the region.

Iran and the United States have not yet reacted to these reports.

Iran’s foreign ministry said on Thursday the negotiations would focus solely on the nuclear issue, underscoring Tehran’s position that other matters — including missiles and regional activities — are off the table.

A day earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington expects talks with Iran to address a range of issues beyond the nuclear file.

“I think in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful, they will have to include certain things, and that includes the range of their ballistic missiles. That includes their sponsorship of terrorist organizations across the region. That includes the nuclear program, and that includes the treatment of their own people,” Rubio said, referring to items on the US agenda for Friday’s talks with Tehran.

The talks, originally scheduled for Friday in Istanbul with several regional countries expected to attend, were moved to Oman at Iran’s request and narrowed to bilateral discussions between Tehran and Washington.

Tehran had also reiterated its insistence on indirect negotiations, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sitting in a separate room from Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, relying on Omani mediators to shuttle messages between the two sides.

State media further reported that the talks would focus exclusively on the nuclear issue, as in previous rounds.

However, The New York Times reported on Thursday that while Iran’s nuclear program would be the main focus, the two sides agreed that negotiations would also cover missiles and Tehran’s support for militant groups.

The newspaper cited three Iranian officials and one Arab official as saying the US agreed to hold the talks in Oman and exclude regional actors, while Iranian officials agreed to face their American counterparts.

Negotiations to avoid war—or merely delay it?

While diplomats maneuver, hardliners continue to float threats of preemptive strikes on Israel and closing the Strait of Hormuz, while claiming that Iran’s military posture has forced Trump to reconsider his repeated threats of military action.

Former foreign minister and lawmaker Manouchehr Mottaki said the likelihood of a US attack has dropped “from 100 percent to around 50 percent,” attributing the change to Washington’s doubts about achieving victory.

Journalist Hossein Yazdi, however, cited three developments over the past few days—the IRGC’s harassment of a US vessel in the Persian Gulf, the US downing of an IRGC Shahed-139 surveillance drone in the Arabian Sea, and Iran’s insistence on moving talks to Oman without Arab observers—as evidence that negotiations are not serious.

“Both sides have their hands on the trigger,” he wrote.

Iran’s red lines remain intact

It remains unclear whether Iran, facing Trump’s threats and the risk of war, is willing to reconsider positions that contributed to the collapse of previous negotiations.

Conservative analyst Hossein Qatib, who has previously advocated crossing the nuclear threshold, warned against surrendering Iran’s estimated 400 kilograms of enriched uranium.

“Any decision regarding these stockpiles must be designed with maximum distrust toward the other side’s intentions,” he wrote. “Handing them over in one go—under any title—is not goodwill or strategic rationality. It is voluntary disarmament under military threat.”

Others echoed familiar red lines. Esmail Kowsari, a member of parliament’s national security committee, said Iran’s missile capabilities and regional activities are “absolutely none of America’s business.”

Former deputy speaker Ali Motahari likewise cited enrichment rights, missile range, support for the so-called Axis of Resistance, and refusal to recognize Israel as all non-negotiable.

Few expect a breakthrough

Given Iran’s insistence on these red lines, its past negotiating record, and recent mass killings of protesters that have plunged the Islamic Republic into a severe legitimacy crisis, few analysts express optimism.

Political analyst Ruhollah Rahimpour told Iran International that the Islamic Republic is, for the first time, confronting both a real external threat and a profound internal legitimacy crisis. “This combination is deadly,” he said, adding that Tehran can no longer assume it can cross Trump’s red lines and face only rhetorical consequences.

Former diplomat Nosratollah Tajik was blunt: “It is unlikely this round of mediation will go anywhere due to structural issues, the gap between goals and expectations, and the unfinished business of the previous two stages of Iran–US conflict.”

Mottaki also expressed doubt, saying: “These talks will not produce tangible results, but they may deter the US from imposing war.”

Yazdi argued there are no signs of serious negotiations, noting that Iran wants to resume narrow nuclear talks in Oman, while Trump and Israel seek far broader concessions. “From their perspective, destroyed nuclear facilities are no longer the top priority,” he wrote.

A user on X warned that failed talks would only make a Trump-led war against Iran appear more justified in the eyes of the international community.

Who really decides?

President Masoud Pezeshkian weighed in with a rare post on X on Tuesday, saying he had instructed the foreign minister to pursue talks “if there is a suitable, threat-free atmosphere.”

The wording sparked controversy, as few doubt that foreign policy is ultimately controlled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. A community note was even added to the post.

"The person who makes the decisions in Iran is the Supreme Leader. The President doesn't really matter," US Vice-President J.D. Vance said on Wednesday.

"The Foreign Minister seems to talk to the Supreme Leader and that's mainly the person that we've communicated with. But it's a very weird country to conduct diplomacy with when you can't even talk to the person who's in charge of the country."

Researcher Abbas Gheidari interpreted Pezeshkian’s phrase “I instructed” as an attempt to preemptively assume responsibility for a potential nuclear concession to protect Khamenei.

Vice President Jafar Ghaempanah tried to soften the debate, writing: “No war is good, and not every peace is surrender.” Some conservatives such as Abdolreza Davari read this as a sign of an imminent deal. Ultra-hardline lawmaker Mehdi Koochakzadeh, however, warned that “the peace imposed by the architects of the JCPOA will bring humiliation worse than surrender.”

Protesters’ anger and pressure on Trump

Some Iranian activists and social media users have reacted angrily to what they describe as Trump’s flexibility, saying Tehran is once again buying time.

“This is what they’ve done for nearly 30 years,” one user wrote. “Trump prioritizes extracting concessions, not regime change—otherwise he wouldn’t have stopped Israel in the 12-day war.”

One image sent by a citizen to Iran International showed graffiti reading: “President Trump: Don’t negotiate with the killers of the Iranian people.”

Throughout the day, senior officials on both sides issued sharply conflicting messages about whether talks would happen at all, where they might be held and what they would cover.

Reports citing Iranian and Western officials alternated between suggesting the process had collapsed and hinting that negotiations were imminent, reflecting what one diplomat described as “negotiations about negotiations.”

In Washington, Marco Rubio sought to project readiness while acknowledging deep skepticism.

“I think in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful, they will have to include certain things,” Rubio said, casting doubt on whether diplomacy would succeed at all.

“I’m not sure you can reach a deal with these guys,” he added. “But we’re going to try to find out.”

Rubio’s Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, said Tehran was “fully ready” for talks, but only within a narrow framework focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

As officials sparred in public, reports surfaced of intense behind-the-scenes haggling over venue and format.

Turkey was first cited as a possible location, then ruled out, before Oman re-emerged — with Araghchi posting on X that talks would be held in Muscat on Friday at 10 a.m. local time.

Hovering over the diplomatic back-and-forth were stark warnings from President Donald Trump, who adopted an increasingly explicit tone in remarks to NBC News.

Asked whether Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, should be concerned, Trump replied: “I would say he should be very worried, yeah. He should be.”

Trump also claimed that the United States had uncovered plans for a new Iranian nuclear facility and had issued a direct threat in response.

Iran was “thinking about starting a new site in a different part of the country,” he said. “We found out about it. I said, you do that, we’re gonna do really bad things to you.”

With negotiations now hanging in the balance, conflicting signals from Tehran have reinforced a familiar pattern: internal rivalries routinely overwhelm coherence at moments requiring discipline.

On Wednesday, Axios reported that the planned talks were no longer expected to go ahead, while Israel’s Channel 12 went further, citing officials as saying the process had been cancelled altogether.

Iranian and US officials have not publicly confirmed that account, but the drift has been unmistakable.

The unraveling followed days of public discord inside Iran’s political establishment.

After President Masoud Pezeshkian said he had “ordered” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to travel to Turkey to discuss arrangements for talks, ultraconservative MP Amir Hossein Sabeti attacked the move in a post on X.

“Mr. Araghchi, our people are waiting for a pre-emptive action against the enemy, not negotiations. And you got up and went to Turkey?!”

The remarks ignored—or deliberately blurred—the fact that decisions on negotiations with the United States rest with the Supreme Leader, not the president. They also illustrated how calls for escalation are often deployed less as strategy than as factional positioning, regardless of the risks such rhetoric may invite.

A second episode followed when ultraconservative MP Hamid Rasai targeted Vice President Jafar Ghaempanah over an X post responding to Pezeshkian’s message about Araghchi’s trip.

After Ghaempanah wrote, “No war is good, and no peace necessarily means surrender,” Rasai questioned his loyalty and invoked his U.S.-based son, escalating the attack with religious language.

Such exchanges are not aberrations. Factional conflict has been embedded in the Islamic Republic since its inception.

Early struggles between Islamic liberals and religious fundamentalists gave way to rivalries among clerical factions, later morphing into competition between reformists and conservatives, and, since the mid-2000s, a sharper divide between hardliners and moderates.

For years, the Supreme Leader functioned as a broker among these camps, preserving a degree of political coherence. As power has become more centralized and alignments more rigid, that balancing role has weakened.

Vested interests across the system have repeatedly shown a willingness to obstruct—and at times actively sabotage—diplomatic processes rather than allow rivals to claim credit for engagement with Washington.

As many commentators, including former President Hassan Rouhani, have long observed, the fiercest resistance to talks has often come not from principled opposition to diplomacy itself, but from fear of who might benefit politically if diplomacy succeeds.

The result is a recurring pattern in which negotiations collapse not only under external pressure, but under the weight of Iran’s own internal rivalries.