The actor who, both before and during the nuclear negotiations, gradually forced the Iranian regime into retreat—from bringing it to the negotiating table to extracting one concession after another—was not officially present. Yet, its role was decisive. The question is: who is this actor?
In February 20, on the first day of Ramadan, Ali Khamenei, speaking before senior state officials and IRGC commanders, described negotiations with the United States as “neither rational nor honorable.”
However, according to reports from Tehran, following explicit threats from the Trump administration, a confidential meeting was held between senior IRGC and government officials. During that session, they unanimously convinced Khamenei that a military confrontation would trigger a nationwide uprising—one that could lead to the regime’s collapse. From that moment on, Khamenei had no choice but to accept negotiations.
He entered the talks aiming to preserve a limited level of uranium enrichment—up to 3.67%—to maintain the regime’s nuclear infrastructure. He was even willing to allow a consortium to handle enrichment, so long as it operated within Iran. His long-term goal was to raise enrichment levels to 20% or even 60% when the time was right, using that capability as leverage against foreign powers.
The Regime’s Vulnerability
Unlike in 2015, the Iranian regime has shown itself to be far more vulnerable in the current negotiations. This increased susceptibility stems from an existential crisis facing the regime—one that has, for over 25 years, kept two-thirds of the population in poverty to preserve its nuclear program. The regime has invested nearly two trillion dollars in this pursuit and now faces the reality that it must abandon it. It has tied its survival to the development of the atomic bomb.
Since the nationwide uprising of December 2017, popular protests have clearly demonstrated the Iranian people’s desire for regime change. Resistance units, organized by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) across the country, have been the driving force behind these protests. Despite brutal repression, these units have managed to coordinate dozens of protest actions daily.
It is the presence of these resistance units throughout Iran that can turn any uprising into a movement capable of toppling the regime. This actor remains active, yet absent from the negotiation table.
The popular discontent towards the regime in place has shown, since 2017, with no less than five consecutive, nationwide uprisings, the increasing weight of a general refusal of the mullahs by their own population. The true driving force behind current rapid development of events becomes clear.
Are the Talks Deadlocked?
Iranian officials have repeatedly complained that the negotiations are at a dead end. Mohsen Rezaei, a member of the National Security Commission of Parliament, told CNN: “We have no hope. The U.S. continues to insist on zero enrichment, and the Islamic Republic will never agree to that.” He added, “We are preparing for Plan B,” though he provided no details.
Meanwhile, the regime’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi also declared that Iran “will not surrender.” However, these statements appear to be aimed more at managing public opinion and preparing the ground for a potential retreat.
Israeli Threats and the Regime’s Panic
Prior to the fifth round of negotiations, several U.S. media outlets reported the possibility of an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. These reports triggered a wave of anxiety within the IRGC and the government. In response, Abbas Araghchi sent a letter to the United Nations, holding the United States responsible for any potential attacks. The IRGC spokesman also declared, “Do not try to scare us with military threats.”
According to two French researchers, authors of the book “Réponse du 7 octobre”, “Any strike on nuclear facilities would serve as a launchpad for an inevitable uprising.” The same authors argue that 80% of Iran’s population opposes the regime and that such an uprising is, in their words, “bound to happen.”
As U.S.-European coordination increasingly limits the Iranian regime’s maneuvering room, Europe has gone so far as to consider not only activating the snapback mechanism but also introducing a “Snapback Plus” clause into any potential agreement. Simultaneously, the United States has made it clear that even one percent enrichment on Iranian soil is unacceptable.
Inside the country, public hatred toward the regime has reached a boiling point, with widespread calls for change. Was this being what former President Donald Trump meant when he said on Sunday, May 25: “The negotiations are going very, very well”?
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
