Iran’s government is publicly celebrating its newly signed memorandum of understanding with the Trump administration as a major triumph, but reactions inside the country suggest a far more complicated picture.
The agreement, which aims to end a war that began earlier this year and launches a new round of negotiations between Washington and Tehran, has generated intense debate across Iran. While senior officials are portraying the deal as evidence of American weakness, researchers tracking public sentiment say support for the agreement is far from universal.
Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not appeared publicly and is believed to have been injured in a U.S. or Israeli strike, declared on social media Thursday that the agreement was the result of President Donald Trump’s “desperation.”
At the same time, analysts monitoring social media discussions, official government messaging, and conversations among ordinary Iranians navigating internet restrictions say the response has been deeply divided.
Erol Yayboke, chief operating officer of FilterLabs.AI, said researchers expected to see more enthusiasm surrounding the end of the conflict. Instead, much of the discussion reflected skepticism about the agreement itself and uncertainty over whether the fighting has truly ended.
According to Yayboke, critics of the deal generally fell into two camps: those who believed it did not go far enough and those who feared it would strengthen the Iranian regime. Researchers found less celebration over the end of hostilities than they anticipated, with many expressing distrust about the durability of the peace.
The 14-point memorandum reopens the Strait of Hormuz, halts fighting, and establishes at least 60 days of negotiations focused on Iran’s nuclear program. It also provides immediate relief from U.S. sanctions targeting Iran’s oil and banking sectors.
Government-backed messaging has highlighted several provisions as major victories for Tehran. Officials have emphasized the Trump administration’s agreement to draw down the U.S. naval blockade and have focused on language they say guarantees an immediate withdrawal rather than a phased 30-day timeline. Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that the blockade has already been lifted.
Iranian officials have also stressed provisions regarding the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that Iran retains authority over its future management after the initial 60-day period outlined in the agreement.
President Masoud Pezeshkian promoted the memorandum on social media, calling it a historic document and describing it as evidence that peace can be achieved through mutual respect.
Even among regime supporters, however, disagreement has emerged. Hard-line factions affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have criticized the agreement for failing to extract greater concessions from the United States.
Researchers described what they see as a split within the regime’s loyal base. Some hard-liners believe Iran entered the negotiations with significant leverage and should have demanded more. Criticism has come from members of parliament, including lawmakers who labeled the agreement damaging or inconsistent with the Supreme Leader’s directives.
Opposition has gone beyond political criticism. Demonstrators reportedly gathered outside Iran’s Foreign Ministry, denouncing negotiators and calling for resignations.
Outside Iran, the regime’s proxy groups have largely avoided discussing the details of the memorandum itself. Instead, analysts say affiliated networks in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and Iraq have promoted content portraying the agreement as proof that the United States and Israel suffered a strategic defeat while the Islamic Republic survived.
Researchers noted the growing use of AI-generated propaganda videos, some depicting President Trump surrendering to Iranian leaders and others using World Cup-themed imagery to amplify anti-American messaging online.
Meanwhile, anti-regime Iranians have voiced a very different complaint. Many activists and protesters who opposed the government during demonstrations earlier this year argue that the agreement does little to address concerns about human rights, political repression, or democratic reform.
According to researchers, some of the sharpest criticism came from Iranians angered that the United States negotiated directly with the Islamic Republic rather than pressuring the regime over its treatment of dissidents. Others expressed frustration that the agreement could further entrench the government’s hold on power.
Still, analysts also found signs of relief among ordinary citizens exhausted by months of uncertainty and conflict. For many Iranians facing difficult economic conditions, the possibility of sanctions relief and a return to greater stability has created cautious hope that daily life may improve, even among those who remain dissatisfied with the deal itself.
[READ MORE: Joe Scarborough Slams Trump-Iran Agreement, Calls Deal ‘Abject Surrender’]
