In Iran, Hard-liners Are Fueling the Fire

An-Nahar, Lebanon, May 17

Developments in Iran reveal a clear divide between a hard-line faction that sees continued war and tension as a source of influence and political advantage, and a more moderate current that views de-escalation and diplomacy as essential for political and economic stability. Since the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, nightly public gatherings initially helped project an image of popular unity around the regime after hostile forces wagered that the system of clerical rule would collapse following the killing of senior leaders on the war’s opening day.

Over time, however, those gatherings became platforms exploited by hard-liners to impose an extreme discourse toward both domestic and foreign audiences, embarrassing the Iranian leadership and undermining its narrative of political unity. In recent days, voices from both conservative and reformist camps have warned of the dangers posed by extremist dominance over these platforms, arguing that such rhetoric threatens national cohesion and is being used to mobilize against moderates within the ruling establishment.

In this context, the Iranian outlet Khabar Online sharply criticized state television and official media for giving disproportionate space to extremists and broadcasting hostile statements against politicians while simultaneously speaking of national unity. The outlet argued that official media discourse now contradicts calls for internal solidarity by amplifying voices that deepen divisions.

Reformist politician Mostafa Hashemitaba, writing in Shargh newspaper, accused extremists of focusing on sabotaging the economic efforts of President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government despite wartime conditions. He argued that some hard-liners view continued tension and confrontation as central to their political project because their influence and status depend on Iran remaining trapped under sanctions and crisis.

The reformist newspaper Etemad also criticized the behavior of extremists at nightly rallies, asking how Iran’s popular support base could be protected from factions that benefit from war and sanctions. It wrote that war is not an end in itself, but a means of defending stability and national rights, while groups that thrive on “permanent tension” oppose any negotiations or settlements that could produce political or economic relief for Iran.

Criticism has not come only from reformists. Mohammad-Kazem Anbarlouei of the conservative Islamic Coalition Party criticized the raising of divisive issues such as hijab policies, negotiations with the West, and prosecutions of political figures during public gatherings, arguing that preserving unity in the Iranian street must remain the top priority. These debates expose a clear split between hard-liners who see continued confrontation as a source of power and moderates who believe diplomacy and de-escalation are necessary to improve the lives of Iranians who have long borne the cost of extremist policies.

Youssef Badr (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)