16JUN

Iran's right turns on the Hormuz deal

3 min read

10:20UTC

Women in black chadors protested outside Iran's foreign ministry office in Mashhad on Saturday, chanting against Foreign Minister Araghchi as the semi-official Fars News Agency circulated the video.

← Back to Iran deal signed, but no paper to show Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Hardline protest and IRGC framing let the corps brand any deal a victory while gripping the Hormuz chokepoint.

Women in black chadors protested outside Iran's foreign ministry office in Mashhad on Saturday 13 June, chanting "death to the dishonourable Araghchi, the infiltrator" ¹. They accuse the foreign minister of conceding too much and surrendering the Hormuz leverage Iran spent the war building. The semi-official Fars News Agency circulated the footage, a signal that hardline media chose to amplify the dissent rather than bury it. Mashhad is a conservative stronghold in Khorasan, a Shia pilgrimage centre and no reformist city, so this is opposition from Iran's right.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran's parallel military authority, gave the protest its political frame. The corps' political deputy said Iran was negotiating "from a position of strength" with "conditions imposed on the other party" ². The corps has neither endorsed the memorandum nor vetoed it. It is doing something more useful to itself: casting any deal as an Iranian victory, which lets it manage a hardline base it cannot fully command.

The corps backed the framing with force. The IRGC ran naval exercises in the strait of Hormuz during the Geneva talks, days after declaring the strait closed to all shipping on 11 June , even as its own foreign ministry conceded ground in Switzerland. Araghchi's concession in Geneva and the corps' exercise in the strait work as two halves of one position: the civilian track gives ground on paper while the IRGC keeps its hand on the chokepoint the paper is meant to reopen.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Iran's decision-making on the nuclear deal is not simply the government versus the US. Inside Iran, different power centres are fighting over what kind of deal to accept, or whether to accept one at all. On Saturday 13 June, women in black chadors protested outside Iran's foreign ministry offices in Mashhad, the country's second city and holiest shrine city, against Foreign Minister Araghchi. Separately, a senior figure in the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), the powerful military organisation controlling Iran's nuclear programme, said Iran was negotiating from a position of strength. The IRGC also ran military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz during the same weekend as the Geneva talks. Together, these signals show that hard-line factions want a tough deal on their terms, not a concession.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Iran's fissile-material programme is existentially tied to the IRGC's institutional identity: the corps built, secured, and expanded the centrifuge halls. A deal constraining enrichment for 15 to 20 years directly limits the corps's most politically consequential asset. The political deputy's position-of-strength framing is not a negotiating tactic; it reflects the IRGC's genuine institutional interest in being seen as the party that imposed conditions rather than accepted them.

Mashhad's religious-conservative population is disproportionately represented in IRGC recruitment and clerical networks. Protests there carry weight inside the Supreme Leader's information bubble in ways that Tehran street demonstrations do not, because Mojtaba Khamenei's legitimacy rests partly on Mashhad's religious establishment.

Escalation

IRGC Hormuz exercises concurrent with Geneva talks represent deliberate dual-track signalling: the corps keeps kinetic leverage visible while civilian negotiators advance. IRGC autonomy on the water means a miscalculation during exercises involving commercial vessels carries escalation risk independent of the diplomatic track.

What could happen next?

Risk
Mashhad protests provide a hardliner mobilisation template: if a deal is signed, similar demonstrations could pressure Mojtaba Khamenei to attach conditions that delay implementation or require renegotiation.
Meaning
The IRGC political deputy's position-of-strength framing, issued while Qatari mediators were in Tehran, signals the corps intends to claim credit for any deal outcome regardless of civilian diplomatic authorship.

Source Landscape

This story draws on mixed-leaning sources from Israel

Israel

Primary parallel: In August 2015, hardline Iranian parliamentarians staged protests outside the Majlis during the JCPOA ratification debate, chanting against the deal while Zarif's team briefed deputies on its terms. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei permitted both the deal and the protests simultaneously, using demonstrators as evidence of domestic costs extracted from the West.

Araghchi, then a deputy negotiator, watched that dual-track play run. The Mashhad protest follows the same structural logic: give the deal's domestic opponents visible expression to insulate the leadership against accusations of capitulation.

Counter-parallel: The 2019 Iranian petrol-price protests that killed an estimated 1,500 people demonstrated that popular anger in Iran can cross from orchestrated to uncontrollable rapidly. Mashhad has its own protest history: demonstrations in December 2017 started there and spread nationally within 72 hours. Tehran cannot be certain that a controlled anti-deal signal stays controlled.

Consensus view: Sanam Vakil at Chatham House and Sina Toossi at the National Iranian American Council have both documented that Iran's conservative-religious constituency in Mashhad (Khorasan province, home to Imam Reza shrine) has historically been the bellwether of hardliner mobilisation. Protests there against Araghchi rather than against economic hardship signal that the audience for this pressure is Mojtaba Khamenei's inner circle, not the foreign ministry itself.

Counter-view: Analysts at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft argue that Fars News Agency circulating the video suggests a controlled leak rather than spontaneous discontent. Fars is semi-official and aligned with the conservative establishment but not the IRGC directly. On this reading, the protest is a factional signal to the negotiating team to hold firm on duration and verification terms, not genuine popular opposition to a deal.

Key tension: Whether the IRGC's position-of-strength framing and the Hormuz naval exercises are coordinated psychological pressure on the US negotiating team or evidence of operational autonomy that the civilian government cannot override.

Sources:Times of Israel·Ecoiran

Mentions:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) →Fars News →Abbas Araghchi →Strait of Hormuz →Iran →Mojtaba Khamenei →Imam Reza shrine →Shia →Ali Khamenei →Switzerland →Majlis →Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft →Chatham House →Sanam Vakil →Geneva →Tehran →Mashhad →

First Reported In

Update #127 · US drops red line; signature still slips

Times of Israel· 14 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

IRGC declares Hormuz shut, vetoing Iran's own deal

IRGC Hormuz closure on 11 June activated the political frame the corps exploited in its position-of-strength messaging during the home-front protest.

Occurred 11 Jun 2026

Read story →

This Event

Iran's right turns on the Hormuz deal

The opposition to the deal is coming from Iran's conservative right, not its centre, and hardline media chose to amplify it.

Led to

Iran hardliners revolt against the deal

The 13 June Mashhad protests and IRGC deputy framing of the deal as strength foreshadowed the 14-15 June Basij march and Kayhan denunciation.

Occurred 15 Jun 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

G7 Leaders (ex-US)

Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.

Protection-and-Indemnity insurers

London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.

IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority

P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.

Israeli Cabinet

Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.

Iranian Majlis hardliners

Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.

US Vice President JD Vance

Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.