Kayhan Wrote of “Deceit” While Iran Spoke of “Miracle Talks”

Iranian newspapers remained shut for a relatively longer period during the Iranian New Year holidays and published or posted their first issue of the new year, 1394, on April 4^th. That is the same day when Iran and the six major world powers - commonly known as the P5+1 – announced they had reached an agreement over Iran’s disputed nuclear program in Lausanne, Switzerland. Newspaper kiosks reflected the division among the populace over the agreement: pro government groups and individuals presenting the agreement as an unprecedented achievement while opponents said it was to the detriment of the country.

“The World: Happy Over the Nuclear Agreement” was the headline of Iran newspaper, the country’s official mouthpiece. It had special sections on the agreement. Its main editorial was titled, “The Spring of Moderate Diplomacy.” It said Iran’s national currency and passport have now gained a new value. It attributed this accomplishment to president Hassan Rouhani’s deep belief in diplomacy and talks, particularly in the new international structure where it said “voices of violence may be loud but they yield no results.”

Shargh newspaper, considered moderate and reform-oriented, used Rouhani’s own words to describe the agreement and the event.  Its title was, “Breakthrough the Crisis: Comprehensive Agreement.” The editor of the paper wrote on the differences between former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Rouhani. “Perhaps Ahmadinejad was unaware of the symbols of trust. He viewed authority and battle in similar terms. His method was reactive. Rouhani’s government stressed on building trust and attained the continuation of enrichment with the least international cost. Instead of learning now to blow, Ahmadinejad merely increased the heat, hoping for some miracle to happen.”

Etemad newspaper, aligned with confined Mehdi Karoubi’s supporters, printed a large photograph of Javad Zarif and Abbas Araghchi, both of whom were smiling. It titled its main headline, “Diplomacy Smiled.” Its editor, Javad Deliri wrote that the regime chose the national interest of Iran over everything else, regardless of whether this was done because of domestic or international pressure. It said this pragmatism matched the decisions to end the eight-year war with Iraq and the posture regarding the first American conflict against Iraq. In another article it prompted the government not to waste its time with the “Concerned” group or the opposition because both of these groups were already isolated and had taken the country to the brink in the past.

Shahrvand newspaper, belonging to Tehran’s municipality, also published a photograph of a smiling Zarif.

Other pro-government newspaper mostly carried large photos of Zarif in a car driving from the airport and a ring of welcomers around it. Ghanoon newspaper had a cartoon on the subject ridiculing Ahmadinejad.

Principlists Are Cautious, Except Kayhan

Among the hardline conservative media, Jomhurie Eslami was the only one which threw is total support for the Lausanne agreement. Its main headline read, “The Large Victory for the Iranian People in the Nuclear Talks.” Vatan Emrouz was expected to post the harshest criticism of the accord. Its title was, “12+1” suggesting a major imbalance in the agreement but its Saturday issue had no comment or editorial on the subject. It published a long story by Mehdi Mohammadi, a former member of Iran’s negotiating team and a critic of Rouhani’s current nuclear policies in which he said the agreement had to be enforced. “It is not logical to assume that six foreign ministers would work round the clock for 10 days on a subject that has no force of enforcement behind it for the future of the talks,” he argued. “Contrary to what is believed, what is important is not the text of the final agreement because that is only the outcome of the many detailed talks of a comprehensive agreement, in other words a political agreement over the final principles that must be concluded in the final comprehensive joint plan. While the Lausanne agreement has many details, it is not enough to form an agreement to be implemented. The two sides must add the many technical details – based on the current framework and principles agreed in Lausanne – so that the final agreement emerges and is signed and then will be implemented. So the negotiating team cannot negate the fact that the agreement in Lausanne has created an important international obligation for Iran.”

The commentary continued, “Except over the issue of Arak, this agreement is not obligatory even implicitly over the red lines that the negotiation team has set for itself and so it cannot be called a balanced agreement by any standard. Despite all the efforts that the negotiations team has undoubtedly worked on there is no sign of a major victory here while the United States, as acknowledged by John Kerry and Obama, were and are in a weak position to say they have achieved a great victory.”

Kayhan newspaper, an important news outlet in the opposition camp, had a sardonic title: “Win-win Produced Results: Atoms Go, Sanctions Remain.” Its editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, who had in the past openly expressed his opposition to the agreement posted an editorial titled, “Accomplishments and Losses” in which he argued that Iranian negotiators had crossed many red-lines. “The opponent has imposed through deceit its unjustified demands which had not been met for 12 years on Islamic Iran, and put a big hat of the Geneva accord on our country under the guise of a press statement.” Putting a hat on a person is a Persian saying which conveys a message that a trick has been imposed on a person. In his article, Shariatmadari promises to write more on the agreement in future but also warns that, “Even a cursory look at the Lausanne agreement shows that the many points that Iran has given up to the opponent are transparent and quantifiable while what the opponent has pledged to do are ambiguous, multi-faceted and debatable.”

The main title of Javan newspaper belonging to the Revolutionary Guards Corps read, “Agreement Postponed till Summer” and wrote, “We are not excited about this agreement nor view it as a victory or a defeat which would be unfair to the Iranian negotiating team.” It continued, “If we look at the world to be run by the law of jungle, then we are certainly winners. But if we look at it from the perspective of prudence for the state then we have come a little short of our revolutionary capital. What is important for the people in the technical commentary is the comparison of where we stood in the nuclear situation yesterday and where we are now going. The key question then becomes what were the talks for?”

Other hardline Principlist media too preferred to present their criticism cautiously and indirectly, and at times vaguely, keeping the alternative options open for future comments.