SAEDNEWS: A growing debate in Tehran raises critical questions about the locus of authority in shaping Iran’s foreign policy, as media commentators clash with seasoned diplomats and institutional voices over the role of negotiation in safeguarding national interests.
According to Saed News, the centrist daily Jomhouri Eslami has called for a sober reassessment of Iran’s approach to diplomacy, criticizing the influence of polarizing television presenters and unqualified media pundits in steering public opinion—and potentially policy—away from strategic engagement.
“In some quarters of national television,” the paper wrote, “returning to the negotiating table is treated like heresy.” Yet, it argued, this binary framing ignores the nuanced reality that diplomacy and defense are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary pillars of a sound foreign policy.
Highlighting the propaganda and reputational advantages of dialogue, the editorial emphasized that negotiations—even when they fail to yield immediate results—serve a critical function: exposing the irrationality and aggression of adversaries to the global public. The recent Israeli-Iranian conflict, which saw a late entry by U.S. forces, illustrated this point. Iranian diplomats effectively shaped global sentiment by underscoring the injustice of attacking a country in the midst of diplomacy—a message that resonated both internationally and domestically.
The editorial cautioned against letting inexperienced or ideologically rigid voices dominate the discourse. “The path forward,” it insisted, “must be guided by statesmen who understand both the sword and the pen—those who grasp that mistrusting the enemy does not mean abandoning dialogue altogether.”
Notably, the paper distanced itself from blanket mistrust of diplomacy based on the recent failed talks with the United States. It pointed to Iran’s own history—as well as broader Islamic and global precedents—to argue that fruitful negotiations are not only possible but historically proven. The failures of recent rounds, it implied, should not obscure the long record of successful conflict resolution through dialogue.
In a concluding recommendation, Jomhouri Eslami urged the foreign ministry to break out of what it termed its “current shell” and actively recruit capable, experienced foreign policy minds. “We must leave the door to diplomacy open,” the paper stated, “and assist our diplomats in reclaiming the rights of the Iranian people—not by silencing voices, but by empowering expertise.”
As Iran repositions itself on the world stage following the latest military and narrative confrontation, this editorial suggests a broader recalibration may be underway: one that questions who truly holds the pen when it comes to drawing the contours of Iran’s engagement with the world.
