Why Iran's hardliners keep blocking a US deal — and why they matter
From IRGC and conservative MPs to clerics and state media, hardliners resist compromise
Dubai: Every time a breakthrough in US-Iran diplomacy appears within reach, resistance emerges from Tehran’s powerful hardline camp.
From the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and conservative lawmakers to influential clerics and state media figures, these groups have repeatedly pushed back against concessions to Washington, turning internal opposition into one of the biggest obstacles to a lasting agreement.
For years, nearly every major attempt to reach a breakthrough with Washington has faced resistance from conservative political, military and clerical factions that view compromise with the US as a threat to the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The latest negotiations are proving no different.
According to reports from The New York Times, influential hardline figures have openly criticised Iran’s negotiating team, questioned concessions to Washington and used Parliament, state media and public rallies to pressure officials involved in the talks.
Who are Iran’s hardliners?
Iran’s hardline camp is not a single organisation but a network of powerful institutions and figures that wield influence across politics, security and the media.
At the centre is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the elite military force established after the 1979 revolution to protect the Islamic Republic.
Unlike Iran’s regular army, the IRGC controls many of the country’s strategic military assets, including missile forces, drone programmes and key security operations. Over the years it has also expanded its influence into politics, business and foreign policy.
The IRGC is supported by the Basij militia, conservative lawmakers, hardline clerics and sections of state media that often oppose engagement with Washington.
WHO ARE IRAN'S HARDLINERS?
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
Iran's most powerful military force.
Separate from the regular army.
Controls missile forces, drones and many strategic military operations.
Wields significant political and economic influence.
Basij militia
Volunteer force linked to the IRGC.
Often mobilised for ideological campaigns and internal security.
Hardline lawmakers
Conservative MPs who oppose concessions to Washington.
Have publicly criticised negotiators and compromises on nuclear and regional issues.
State media allies
Sections of state television and conservative media outlets.
Often portray negotiations with the US as a sign of weakness.
Clerical conservatives
Religious figures who view engagement with Washington as a threat to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution.
WHO CONTROLS IRAN'S MILITARY?
The regular army (Artesh) is responsible for conventional defence.
The IRGC oversees strategic assets including ballistic missiles, many drone operations and elite units.
The Supreme Leader serves as commander-in-chief of both forces.
In practice, the IRGC is widely regarded as Iran's most influential military and political institution.
Why do they oppose a deal?
Many hardliners argue that the US cannot be trusted and that negotiations risk weakening Iran’s strategic position.
Some believe Washington ultimately seeks to undermine the Islamic Republic regardless of any agreement. Others oppose restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme, missile capabilities or regional influence.
Recent reports indicate that hardline lawmakers have criticised negotiators over discussions involving sanctions relief, uranium stockpiles and the future of the Strait of Hormuz, describing them as red lines.
A pattern that keeps repeating
This is not the first time hardliners have challenged diplomacy.
During negotiations that led to the 2015 nuclear deal, conservative politicians, IRGC figures and influential clerics accused negotiators of surrendering Iranian rights and making excessive concessions to the West.
Many of the same arguments have resurfaced during the latest talks.
Analysts say that while hardliners may not represent the majority of Iranians, they retain enough political and institutional influence to complicate negotiations and shape the limits of any agreement.
Why they still matter
The economic pressure created by sanctions, war-related damage and years of isolation has strengthened arguments inside the government for a deal.
Yet any agreement still needs to survive resistance from powerful factions that view compromise as a strategic risk.
That helps explain why optimism surrounding Iran-US diplomacy is often followed by delays, new conditions or fresh disputes.
Even when negotiators appear close to a breakthrough, the battle is frequently not only between Tehran and Washington — but also within Iran itself.
