Why ceasefire deal with US has unsettled Iran’s hardliners

Why ceasefire deal with US has unsettled Iran’s hardliners

In recent days, a prominent display in Tehran’s central district featured a massive sign at a high-traffic crossroads, asserting that the Strait of Hormuz would stay blocked. This message was intended to reflect the stance of Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has been largely absent from public view since assuming the role last month. However, the bold declaration might soon be replaced after Iran consented to a two-week pause in hostilities and the reopening of the Strait, as requested by Pakistan. The country has been acting as a mediator between the United States and Iran.

Despite Iran’s repeated insistence on a permanent end to the conflict with the US and Israel, the agreement to a temporary ceasefire appears to have unsettled the hardliners. These groups, who have long advocated for continued military pressure, argue that the nation should have capitalized on its strategic position to maintain control over the region. The ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait has been a key element of their war strategy, and they see the decision as a concession to adversaries.

Reports indicate that hardline activists burned US and Israeli flags at the foreign ministry during the night after the ceasefire announcement. A group of Basij volunteers, part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, marched to the ministry to protest the agreement. Meanwhile, the editor of Kayhan, a hardline newspaper, called the decision “a gift to the enemy,” suggesting it would allow the opposing forces to restock and continue the war.

The Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Iran’s highest decision-making body under the Supreme Leader, approved the temporary truce in exchange for a two-week ceasefire from the US and Israel. This came as Washington and Tehran engaged in talks. Chinese diplomats are believed to have played a key role in persuading Iran to accept Pakistan’s proposal, emphasizing the need for strategic compromise.

Iran has endured extensive damage during the 40-day war, with over 3,000 casualties reported. US President Donald Trump had threatened even greater losses if the conflict continued. Even among hardliners, the urgency to prevent further destruction of critical infrastructure has become evident. The decision to halt hostilities reflects a pragmatic shift, despite ideological resistance.

Just hours before the ceasefire was announced, the hardline Chief Justice, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, stated on state television that Iran sought to end the war while retaining its advantage. This sentiment aligns with what the former foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, had previously articulated in an article for

Foreign Affairs

, underscoring a convergence of moderate and hardline perspectives.

The Speaker of Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, is set to lead Iran’s delegation in talks with the US in Islamabad, directly engaging with Vice President JD Vance. This marks a departure from the hardline script, which had previously barred direct negotiations with the US. The new leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, appears to have endorsed this approach, signaling a potential easing of tensions.

While the ceasefire provides temporary relief, it does not resolve the underlying conflict. Iran and the US remain far from a lasting peace, and the war could reignite if talks falter. Some supporters of the conflict, viewing it as a means to overthrow what they consider a corrupt regime, may welcome a return to open hostilities.