The “punishment” for the extremists in Iran who oppose the negotiations

The rift in the conservative camp in Iran is deepening, and the speaker of the parliament and the head of Iran’s negotiating team, Mohammad-Bakar Kalibaf, scored a political victory after two of the fiercest critics of the contacts with Washington lost their positions in the national security and foreign policy committee of the parliament. The opposition website Iran International emphasized that the development is seen as a blow to the extremist camp, which consistently opposes any attempt to renew the the dialogue with the United States and repeatedly attacked Kalibaf and Arakachi for leading the negotiations.

The Iranian parliament has not held regular public meetings since the outbreak of the last war, after the Supreme National Security Council reportedly ordered the suspension of its activities. This week the parliament returned to activity, shortly after Kalybaf was elected for a seventh consecutive term as chairman.

In the internal elections held in the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Mahmoud Nababian lost his position as vice-chairman of the committee, while Ibrahim Rezai was removed from the position of the committee’s speaker. The two are considered prominent critics of Kalibaf and fierce opponents of negotiations with the United States. Following the changes, the position of committee members who are seen as more supportive of promoting diplomacy was strengthened, which caused outrage in the extremist camp.

The Fars news agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, questioned the legality of the vote and claimed that the elections for the head of the committee were held under a “fog of ambiguity”. According to the report, another vote is expected to decide who will head the committee.

The news website Rouydad24, which is affiliated with the reformist camp, also saw the results as a sign of a change in the balance of power in one of the most important committees in the parliament, a change that may affect Iran’s foreign and security policy in the coming months.

The extreme camp claimed that this was a deliberate move by Kalibaf intended to push the members of the Faydari Front, the ultra-conservative movement in the parliament. Despite its prominent presence, this camp remains a minority even within the parliament controlled by the conservatives. In the last elections for the Speaker of the Parliament, his candidate received only 29 votes, compared to 235 received by Kalibaf.

The changes also provoked criticism on social networks. Among other things, it was written that the parliament convened only twice – once to re-elect Kalibaf as chairman and another time to oust his opponents, accusing him of “dictatorial conduct”.

At the same time, members of parliament seek to strengthen their influence on policy towards the United States. A bill was submitted to the parliament, supported by 180 of the 290 members of parliament, which was intended to increase the oversight of the legislators over the government’s decisions regarding the negotiations and the policy in the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, the members of parliament demanded the establishment of a special committee to oversee the talks with Washington and the implementation of the conditions set by Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei.

The chairman of the committee, Ibrahim Azizi, who is considered close to Qalibaf and the traditional conservative camp and has retained his position, wrote that the parliament will stand by Iran’s “red lines”, especially when it comes to the management of the Strait of Hormuz, and warned that further measures “will keep our enemies awake at night”.

In the midst of all this, Kalibaf himself sent a clear message that despite the resumption of hostilities between Iran and the United States, the possibility of negotiations still exists.

In what he said yesterday, he made it clear that Iran must also use the tools of diplomacy and negotiation to promote its national interests. According to him, coordination must be created between the military campaign and the political effort, and there should be no fear of either war or negotiations, “because both tools serve the defense of Iran’s interests.”

Kalibaf emphasized that the mere holding of negotiations does not constitute surrender – in response to his critics in the extremist movement in Iran. He even revealed that he was the target of attacks by extremist elements due to leading the talks with the United States, but said that he did so for the “advancement of Iran” and at the direction of Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei.

According to him, Iran’s national security also depends on maintaining its control over the Strait of Hormuz. He accused the United States of violating the understandings between the countries and of trying to undermine Iranian control of the strait by allowing ships to pass through the southern lane, adjacent to Oman.

Kalibaf’s message is intended for two audiences at the same time: the international community, which fears a further escalation in the war and its economic consequences, and the Iranian public, which remains divided on the question of whether to return to the negotiating table with Washington or continue the military conflict.