ATA MAHAMAD

IranWire

Iranian reformists are facing widespread condemnation after publishing a political statement calling for the suspension of nuclear enrichment, free elections, and negotiations with the United States.

The 11-point statement, released on August 17, has drawn sharp criticism from government officials, hardline media, and religious institutions, who accuse the reformists of betraying Iran's national interests amid heightened tensions with Israel and the West.

Senior officials have labeled the document a "surrender letter" and demanded legal action against its authors. Some critics even compared it to foreign-backed coup attempts.

Iran’s judiciary chief, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Eje’i, warned the reformists to “declare their mistake and return from this path” or face prosecution. He said even factions close to the signatories had condemned the statement.

“Those who issued this statement out of negligence or special motives must declare their mistake and return from this ugly act,” he said, adding that Tehran’s prosecutor would “act according to his duty under the law” and that judicial proceedings were already underway.

The Iran Reform Front urged the Islamic Republic to voluntarily suspend uranium enrichment, accept oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and secure full sanctions relief. It also criticized the government’s “tactical negotiation to buy time” policy, while calling for national reconciliation and structural reforms.

The reformists' statement proposed a general amnesty for political prisoners, lifting restrictions on political figures, and shifting governance toward national development.

Its release comes at a particularly volatile moment, with some Iranian political forces openly discussing a "post-Islamic Republic era" and others demanding a referendum on the system’s future.

Hossein Mozaffar, a member of the powerful Expediency Discernment Council, said the reformists had “crossed rationality and the system’s red line,” dismissing the statement as "entirely slander and condemnation of the system" designed to promote “despair, polarization, and new sedition.”

Saeed Jalili, another council member and former presidential candidate, accused reformists of seeking solutions in “the West’s embrace” rather than strengthening “domestic opportunities and unity around guardianship.”

Hardline media also joined the attacks. Agah newspaper branded reformists as “surrenderists,” claiming they had no program beyond “attacking supervisory approval, freeing political prisoners, and giving a green light to the Agency” - a reference to international nuclear inspectors.

It compared the reformists' call for suspending enrichment to “repeating the poison cup,” writing, “By dancing beautifully for the enemy and promoting despair, you stand against God’s will and the people.”

The criticism intensified because the statement followed June’s 12-day Israel-Iran war. Conservatives argued the reformists were undermining national unity during a time of foreign threat.

Bijan Abdolkarimi, a university professor, called the statement “romantic and emotional,” saying its timing was “the worst possible” given Iran is facing “the most severe enemy attacks.” He described its final clauses as evidence of “surrender logic.”

Mohammad Taghi Naghdali, deputy chairman of parliament’s legal commission, accused reformists of “completing America and Israel’s unfinished work” rather than "thinking about people's livelihood."

The timing also drew comparisons to history: the statement’s release just two days after the anniversary of the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran’s elected government gave critics additional ammunition.

Ahmad Khatami, Tehran’s interim Friday prayer leader, said the text “smells of soft coup” and “exactly repeats Netanyahu’s demands,” warning that reformists were following the same path as in 1953 by “trusting the enemy.”

Iran’s religious establishment echoed the criticism. The Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom accused reformists of “prescribing change and surrender out of fear of the enemy,” while the Islamic Coalition Party condemned what it called a "surrender letter," arguing that proposals for suspending nuclear enrichment, negotiating with America and withdrawing military forces from politics amounted to "strategic disarmament of the country."

The Union of Independent Islamic Student Associations demanded “decisive action by legal authorities and the Interior Ministry” until the reformists retreat from their positions.

The hardline Front of Islamic Revolution Stability accused reformists of attempting a “transition from Pezeshkian” project, referencing President Masoud Pezeshkian.

The group likened the statement to earlier reformist efforts during the presidencies of Mohammad Khatami and the 2009 Green Movement protests.

Pro-establishment media mounted a coordinated offensive. Fars News Agency claimed to expose behind-the-scenes disagreements among reformist parties, suggesting many had already distanced themselves from the text.

Keyhan newspaper, known for its hardline positions, described the statement as “contrary to security and territorial integrity” and “another name for surrender to America.”

Hassan Abbasi, head of the Yaghin think tank, went further, calling the statement a “coup designed by Israel” in a video statement. He claimed the recent military tensions "provided an opportunity for reformists to breathe" and accused them of celebrating the deaths of Iranian military commanders during recent conflicts.

Reformist leaders rejected these characterizations.

Azar Mansouri, head of the Reform Front, insisted the statement was “the product of a collective decision” approved by 38 votes after internal debate.

“This statement was written and published within the framework of a democratic mechanism,” she said.

Still, divisions emerged within the reformist camp. Former parliament member Parvaneh Salahshouri told Radio Farda that most of the text’s clauses “have been raised for years.” Abbas Abdi, another reformist, told BBC Persian that the statement offered “no new points” and resembled an individual position rather than a comprehensive solution.

Prominent reformist media figure Mohammad Ghouchani criticized the timing, warning it could weaken the government’s negotiating position, strengthen hardliners, and fuel political mistrust.

“Why should you enter a field that has no result for yourself, the government, and the country except costs?” he wrote.

Even some government officials sought distance. Government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said that while society should remain dynamic, “our comments should not complicate conditions or be somehow misused by the enemy.”