With the Islamic Republic having gained major concessions from the White House in the Memorandum of Understanding signed this week, the government media in Tehran tried to calm nerves after a scheduled follow-up meeting in Switzerland was canceled abruptly.
High-level U.S. and Iranian delegations were supposed to meet to iron out further details related to the MoU, but the meeting was called off after Israeli operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon peaked on June 18, 2026. Iran has been insisting on a withdrawal of Israeli forces and an end to attacks against Hezbollah, but once the meeting was canceled, the government media refrained from its usual anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric.
The commentaries seem to be designed to prepare Iranian audiences for a slower and more difficult negotiating process.
Nour News, linked with top national security circles, tried to sound pragmatic and strategic rather than ideological in two commentaries on June 19, 2026. The outlet did not blame the postponement on American bad faith or Israeli sabotage. Instead, it laid out several possible explanations and treated Israel as a rational actor pursuing its own interests, rather than as an irrational spoiler.
“In diplomacy—especially when it involves decades-long disputes and a relationship as complex as that between Iran and the United States—not every postponement or interruption should be viewed as evidence of failure,” Nour News wrote.
The argument appears to be that Israel is dissatisfied with the emerging U.S.-Iran understanding because it fears a settlement that leaves Iran’s core capabilities and regional influence intact. From this perspective, continued Israeli military actions in Lebanon are attempts to shape the diplomatic environment and prevent the agreement from solidifying. This is a more analytical tone than the usual rhetoric of imminent collapse or reckless aggression.
More importantly, the commentaries seem to be designed to prepare Iranian audiences for a slower and more difficult negotiating process. Rather than treating the postponement as a crisis, Nour News frames it as part of a broader struggle over the post-war order. The underlying message is that the memorandum has opened a new phase in which implementation, regional security arrangements, and the behavior of third parties such as Israel may prove as important as the agreement itself.
But in the second commentary, Nour News argued that Hezbollah’s fate is part of the deal signed with Washington and the Israeli attacks in Lebanon were the reason for scrapping the U.S. and Iran meeting. Nevertheless, this commentary also argued that the U.S. appears committed to end the conflict and every hiccup should not be interpreted as failure and resumption of hostilities.
In a subtle manner, the commentary tried to exert more pressure on Washington to restrain Israel in what might become an Iranian strategy to deepen disagreements between Washington and Jerusalem.
Iranian social media users reported nightly street gatherings in Tehran by hardline activists opposed to the agreement.
Rouydad24, a relatively moderate outlet in Tehran, gave prominent coverage to Vice President JD Vance’s description of Iranian negotiators as acting “like a normal country” and his warning against turning Iran into another Libya. The article appeared to present the remarks as evidence that Washington is increasingly treating the Islamic Republic as a legitimate negotiating partner rather than seeking its collapse, a message likely pushed by advocates of engagement in Tehran.
However, Tasnim, a news outlet affiliated with elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has not changed its rhetoric regarding the United States and Israel, calling them murderous regimes and aggressors. The contrast with Nour News has become stark, perhaps revealing another angle of the factional nature of governance, especially in post-Khamenei Iran.
In the meantime, Iranian social media users reported nightly street gatherings in Tehran by hardline activists opposed to the agreement, who indirectly criticize and warn those responsible for negotiating it. The main target appears to be Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the chief negotiator with Washington. While the Islamic Republic’s power structure remains opaque, Ghalibaf appears to be at the center of decision-making, backed by parts of both the “reformist” camp, including former President Hassan Rouhani, and influential elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
