Iran's Hardliners Defend Confrontation With U.S., Israel

Iran’s former officials are calling for an agreement with Washington as hardliners and military commanders continue to argue for confrontation with the United States and Israel. The dispute exposes a struggle over Tehran’s foreign policy and the costs of its standoff, after months of direct conflict with the United States and repeated warnings from Washington and Israel.

Confrontation or Negotiations

Former President Hassan Rouhani, former Tehran mayor Gholamhossein Karbaschi and Hossein Marashi, secretary-general of the centrist Executives of Construction party, are among those urging Iran to ease tensions with the United States. They say breaking the diplomatic impasse could relieve economic pressure and allow development to resume.

Hardliners and military officials describe resistance to Washington and Israel as essential to Iran’s security. They warn Tehran not to make concessions under pressure. The dispute centers on whether Iran should pursue diplomacy to end its confrontation with the United States or raise the costs for its adversaries in hopes of winning better terms.

Either choice carries political risks inside Iran. Rival factions could portray major concessions as capitulation, giving decision-makers reason to delay. Escalation, though, could bring further economic or military costs that opponents of the hardliners might use against them, according to the article.

Diplomacy Without a Defined Goal

Hamid Aboutalebi, a former diplomat close to Rouhani, described the dilemma in an interview with Khabar Online this week. He said Iranian diplomacy is caught between immediate conflicts and the lack of a clearly defined long-term strategy, while public expectations increasingly diverge from geopolitical realities.

Aboutalebi said Tehran had failed to define diplomacy’s purpose, scope and desired outcome. Without clarity, he said, Iran can’t turn battlefield developments into political gains. Instead, it is left “reacting to events rather than shaping them,” especially in its confrontation with Israel and the United States.

Iranian public messaging reflects the same uncertainty. Many Iranians see diplomacy as a possible route to economic relief and greater stability, while officials alternate between warnings of resistance and signals that negotiations remain possible. Aboutalebi said Iran should set long-term foreign-policy goals rather than manage one crisis after another.

He argued that a clearer approach would require deeper regional integration, a structured approach to the nuclear dispute and economic partnerships that could reduce Iran’s isolation. The article reports no resolution of those questions. Tehran continues to preserve the possibility of both confrontation and diplomacy.

The Cost of Delay

Tejarat-e Farda, an Iranian economic weekly, has called the approach “suspended diplomacy”: Tehran neither moves decisively toward confrontation nor commits to meaningful negotiations. The magazine said Iranians had recognized the “tragic depth” of foreign-policy failures, producing “lethargy and despair” rather than confidence or enthusiasm.

Writing in 2022, the magazine described strategic hesitation shaped by domestic political caution, regional pressures and concern that diplomatic steps might prove difficult to reverse. Political analyst Fatemeh Mosayebi said Tehran repeatedly signaled a willingness to engage in dialogue while avoiding concrete commitments. That left Iran and Western governments in a cycle where neither wanted to make the first major move.

Circumstances have changed in the four years since that debate. Iran has moved from indirect regional confrontation to war with the United States, and economic pressure and military escalation have grown more costly. Yet Tehran’s diplomatic purpose remains unresolved, and each decision affects relations with Washington and the balance of power among Iran’s political camps.

Tejarat-e Farda called the delay a “suspension of decision.” The magazine warned that postponing difficult choices can “cost more than confrontation” by prolonging economic pressure without corresponding strategic gains. The increasingly public calls for negotiations suggest the costs of indecision are harder to ignore. Aboutalebi and Marashi are asking whether Tehran can threaten escalation, signal openness to diplomacy and still postpone the compromises an agreement would require.