Iranians are sceptical that the action plan signed between Tehran and Washington will usher in long lasting stability, after months of limbo trapping them between war and peace.
A 14 point memorandum of understanding signed by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump commits the countries to ending military hostilities and coming to a broader agreement within 60 days.
Other commitments include the removal of international sanctions on Iran’s oil sales, unfreezing Iranian funds held abroad, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran had prevented the passage of vessels, causing chaos in global financial markets. The US also committed to removing a parallel blockade on Iran’s southern ports.
Some Iranians see the plan as a way for Mr Trump to buy time before mid-term elections in the US, where domestic anger over inflation prompted by the war threatens the president’s performance.
“Trump will just allow them [Iran] to sell oil, which is going to be good for the markets, especially gas prices in the US, and that’s a political win for the mid-terms maybe,” said Pouya, who lives in a city in southern Iran and does not support his country’s government. The plan also allows Iran to “basically get everything, which is really suspect,” he added. Like others interviewed by The National, he did not want to be identified.
Iranian government officials have framed the deal as reciprocal and said Tehran will only uphold its commitments if it sees the US doing the same.
“It’s action in return for action,” chief negotiator Mohammed Bagher Qalibaf, who is also Speaker of Iran's Parliament, said in an interview broadcast on state television on Wednesday.
Many do not see the plan bringing long-lasting relief from economic turmoil and authoritarian rule.
Some anti-regime Iranians who had been hoping for an end to five decades of clerical rule in US-backed regime change are deeply disappointed in the US doubling down on engaging the current system. At the beginning of the war, Mr Trump encouraged Iranians to rise against their government, and said that “America is backing you with overwhelming strength”.
By this week, the American President's tone had changed dramatically, and he said that he had “never cared about regime change” in Iran.
The plan is “not at all” in the interests of the Iranian people, said one man in the city of Isfahan, who had backed foreign intervention to help overthrow his government.
“We should cry for democracy really, which Trump buried with signing this deal,” he told The National. “The Islamic Republic’s laws and frameworks still apply to everything.”
Others have raised concerns that the plan contains no provisions or demands for improvements to Iran’s human rights record. Executions and arrests have continued apace throughout the conflict, and last month Amnesty International accused Tehran of using the cover of war to intensify its repression of dissent.
Human rights lawyer Gissou Nia questioned whether a pledge in the plan for both the US and Iran to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs meant US litigants would no longer be able to sue the Islamic Republic for torture and extrajudicial killing, crimes that human rights organisations have long documented. Unfrozen Iranian assets should be “deposited into a strike fund to support the opposition or for a future free Iran,” she added in a post on X.
Others are more optimistic that the plan’s clauses on freeing up trade through the Strait of Hormuz will both provide some relief for the Iranian economy and that the plan overall distances Iranians from the spectre of more violence. Many Iranians who oppose their government also opposed the war, especially as the civilian death toll rose and urban centres came under fire.
“The agreement was signed, and for now the shadow of war has been lifted from the people's minds,” Mojtaba Baharvand, chief of the transport and logistics commission in Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, wrote on X.
He criticised what he described as “extremists” in US, Iran and Israel who favoured more military confrontation.
“Perhaps when warmongers and extremists on three different fronts are not happy about the same event, it is not bad news for the people,” he added.
Iranians of varied political stripes are sceptical about Israel’s adherence to the plan. The text does not mention the country by name but says that the US “and its allies” will commit to an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” as well as ensuring that country’s “territorial integrity and sovereignty.” Israel said on Thursday that it does not intend to withdraw from southern Lebanese territory.
“It's not clear how Trump is going to make Israel pull back from that front in south Lebanon that they've created,” said one Iranian journalist in an Instagram post. She is frequently critical of her country's authorities, especially their brutal crackdown on widespread anti-government protests in January.
The overwhelming feeling is that this is very much not a done deal. Iranians are very aware that there are wide gaps between Tehran and Washington on Iran’s nuclear programme, such as the long-term scope of its uranium enrichment capabilities, and that there is no guarantee they will be able to sign a longer-term agreement.
“This agreement is not solid,” said another man in Tehran. “We'll have to see what happens at the end of the summer.”
