Why ceasefire deal with US has unsettled Iran’s hardliners

Why ceasefire deal with US has unsettled Iran’s hardliners

Just days after assuming leadership, Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, faced immediate backlash from within his own ranks. A massive poster displayed at a key crossroads in Tehran proclaimed, “The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed,” a message meant to assert Iran’s defiance against the United States and Israel. However, this declaration may now be overshadowed by a recent agreement to temporarily halt hostilities, following Pakistan’s intervention in mediating talks between the two nations.

The decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz came as a surprise to many, especially those who had anticipated a prolonged campaign. Iran had previously stated its opposition to a short-term pause, insisting on a permanent resolution to the conflict. Hardline factions, fueled by the belief that the country had the strategic advantage, expressed frustration over what they viewed as a concession to foreign adversaries.

Reports indicate that Iran’s elite Basij volunteer militia, linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, took to the streets in protest. They set fire to American and Israeli flags in the early hours of the day after the ceasefire was announced. The move was seen as a symbolic rejection of the agreement, which was brokered through the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) under the leadership of moderate President Masoud Pezeshkian.

“A gift to the enemy,” wrote the editor of Kayhan, Iran’s hardline newspaper, criticizing the deal as a step toward allowing the US to replenish its forces. The SNSC framed the two-week truce as a strategic gain, ensuring temporary access for commercial vessels through the Strait in exchange for a pause in attacks.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, and his military chief played a central role in securing the agreement. Chinese diplomats are believed to have influenced the decision, reinforcing Iran’s alliance with Beijing. The 40-day conflict has left Iran with extensive damage, according to human rights groups, which report over 3,000 casualties. US President Donald Trump had previously warned of even greater losses, heightening tensions.

Despite the ceasefire, the ideological divide within Iran remains stark. Hardliners argue that the country should have continued its campaign, as it was in a stronger position to assert dominance. Yet, even among these factions, the urgency to avoid further devastation of critical infrastructure has begun to shift perspectives. Chief Justice Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei echoed this sentiment, stating on state TV that Iran sought to end the war while preserving its strategic edge—a stance similar to that of the late moderate foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who had written in Foreign Affairs just days prior.

The SNSC’s choice to engage in direct talks with the US marks a departure from previous policies. Former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had prohibited such negotiations, but his son, now in charge, appears to have endorsed the move. While the ceasefire brings a brief reprieve, the war’s resumption remains a possibility should diplomatic efforts falter. Some Iranians who supported the conflict view it as a means to challenge what they see as an oppressive regime, yet others see the truce as a necessary relief from ongoing violence.