Analyst: Pezeshkian turning into scapegoat for faltering US-Iran MoU

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is being positioned as the principal figure to bear responsibility for the faltering US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU), according to an analysis published by Al Jazeera, which argues that the move reflects deepening divisions within Iran's ruling establishment rather than the actions of the president alone.

The article, written by Kayhan Valadbaygi, a research fellow at the International Institute of Social History, comes as renewed US and Israeli strikes on Iran have raised doubts over the future of the framework agreement signed by Washington and Tehran in June.

According to the analysis, official rhetoric in Tehran has increasingly focused on Pezeshkian as public frustration grows over the uncertain future of the MoU.

Days after the agreement was signed, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said he had "a different view" on the deal. He added that he had allowed it to proceed because the president, "as head of the Supreme National Security Council", had made a commitment to safeguard the rights of the Iranian nation and the "Resistance Front" and had "explicitly accepted responsibility for it".

The analysis notes that Khamenei's statement did not mention Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who headed Iran's negotiating team. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had previously said that "responsibility for the negotiations was entrusted by the 'nezam' [the system] to Mr Ghalibaf".

Valadbaygi argues that the omission was deliberate, suggesting that political credit for any success would fall to Ghalibaf, while responsibility for failure would rest with Pezeshkian.

The article further argues that the dispute reflects broader tensions within what it describes as Iran's "military-bonyad complex" — a network linking the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), security institutions and major religious foundations.

According to the analysis, one faction, associated with Ghalibaf, supports economic recovery through limited engagement with the outside world, including a proposed $300 billion Reconstruction and Development Fund envisaged under the MoU. A rival ideological faction centred around the Paydari Front reportedly opposes such measures, viewing foreign investment as a threat to Iran's sovereignty.

The analysis contends that Pezeshkian's comparatively limited political power made him a suitable figure to absorb criticism if the agreement failed. It argues that his presidency has effectively been transformed into what it calls "a circuit breaker", intended to shield more powerful institutions from political fallout.

Valadbaygi concludes that while directing public anger towards the president may temporarily ease tensions within Iran's leadership, it is unlikely to resolve the underlying struggle between factions favouring economic pragmatism and those advocating continued confrontation with the West.

By Aghakazim Guliyev