U.S.-Iran Talks: How Khamenei’s Silence Amplifies His Control

Iranwire – Iran finds itself at a political crossroads following U.S. President Donald Trump’s demand for direct negotiations.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has remained publicly silent on the talks for nearly two weeks, creating a vacuum filled with contradictory voices nationwide.

In his last public address on March 31 in Mashhad, Khamenei said, “Everyone should know that our positions remain the same as they were, and the enmity of America and the Zionist regime also remains as it was.”

He added, “If any mischief is committed, they will certainly receive a firm counterblow.”

Since Trump announced the possibility of talks last week, Iran’s official response has been fragmented. The government has issued conflicting statements, the Supreme National Security Council has remained silent, and only scattered remarks from mid-level officials have appeared in state media.

This silence is not unusual – it has been a standard tactic for Khamenei during major political crises throughout his leadership.

In Oman, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi agreed to continue nuclear negotiations following initial discussions.

Witkoff briefly met with Araghchi on Saturday after two and a half hours of indirect talks mediated by Omani officials.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry described the talks as “constructive and mutually respectful.”

In a statement released Saturday afternoon, the White House echoed this sentiment, describing the discussions as “very positive and constructive” while conceding that the issues remaining are “very complicated.”

“Special Envoy Witkoff’s direct communication today was a step forward in achieving a mutually beneficial outcome,” the White House statement read.

President Trump is seeking an agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and has warned of potential military action if no deal is reached.

In Tehran, rather than directly engaging, Khamenei allows his representatives across the country, particularly Friday prayer leaders, to voice contradictory positions. 

This creates a political spectrum in which negotiations are simultaneously condemned as a “beggar’s bowl” in some cities and praised as a “tool of rationality and dignity” in others.

The result is calculated ambiguity: Khamenei maintains control while avoiding commitment to any single position.

His final stance emerges not through direct statements but in the space between competing narratives – a form of governance through strategic absence.

One of the dominant themes in Friday prayer sermons on April 11 was explicit opposition to negotiation, even indirect talks.

In cities like Mashhad, Qom, Urmia, Yazd, and Mehdi Shahr, Friday prayer leaders used harsh rhetoric, framing any diplomatic contact with the United States as a deviation from the path of “resistance.”

In Mashhad, a hub of Iranian fundamentalism in recent years, Ahmad Alamolhoda declared, “In this cursed JCPOA, they went, sat, talked, laughed, held hands, walked shoulder to shoulder in the streets – and then you saw what America did.”

He called negotiating with the U.S. “contrary to national pride.” He warned, “If someone is Iranian and has Iranian honor, they won’t accept emptying their hands… and sitting in a corner holding a beggar’s bowl.”

In Qom, Alireza A’arafi warned of “arrogant powers” trying “to make Iran surrender.”

“You will never see the day when a nation that has stood by its ideals for half a century and learned from history backs down today,” he said.

However, as the director of the country’s religious seminaries, A’arafi took advantage of the Supreme Leader’s silence, saying that resistance against enemies must be conducted according to principles determined by the revolution’s leader – principles that are no longer clearly defined.

In Urmia, Supreme Leader’s representative Mehdi Ghoreyshi said, “America is a rabid dog that must be resisted until it is defeated, although some inside the country have become America’s loudspeakers and see negotiation as the solution to its threats.”

He added, “Regarding indirect negotiations with America, officials must follow the Supreme Leader’s guidelines, including rationality, intelligence, wisdom, dignity, and the experience of the last four decades as a model for advancing negotiations.”

If there is a standard message among the Friday prayer leaders, it is the call to respect Khamenei’s wishes.

In Yazd, Mohammad Reza Naseri said, “If we want to stand against enemy threats and the likes of Trump, we must move with unity, empathy, and solidarity. The only way to counter America’s hostilities is domestic unity under the shadow of obedience to the Supreme Leader’s commands.”

On Friday, alongside the strong opposition to the U.S., some representatives of the Supreme Leader neither entirely rejected nor openly embraced negotiations. Instead, they presented a more tactical and calculated stance of the Islamic Republic, framing indirect talks as a “test for the other side.”

In southern Ramshir, Salman Hashemi said, “Indirect negotiation sends a clear message to America: you are so untrustworthy that I won’t even speak to you directly.”

He added, “Trump, with a letter containing two options – war or negotiation – intended to put Iran at an impasse. But Iran, through indirect negotiation and a military warning, turned this threat into a historic opportunity.”

In Baharestan, Sajjad Mousavi, the Supreme Leader’s representative, offered a different narrative.

“America wanted direct negotiation on several fronts,” he said, “but by changing the conditions, the Islamic Republic limited negotiation to indirect talks and only on the nuclear issue. Today, it is America that is being tested on recognizing Iran’s rights.”

The Friday prayer leader of southern Sirik emphasized that Iran only agreed to indirect negotiations “to provide an opportunity to test Washington’s seriousness about implementing a political solution.”

He said, “There is neither a war ahead nor direct negotiation. The definitive policy of the Islamic Republic is that if any negotiation takes place, it will be indirect and within a framework determined by Iran.”

In Kermanshah, the Friday prayer leader underscored the Islamic Republic’s independence, saying, “We determine our positions ourselves, not the UAE, which has relations with Israel.”

He continued, “Iran proposed a third option: neither war nor direct negotiation, but indirect negotiation.”

Among all the sermons delivered from official Islamic Republic podiums on April 11, only in Tehran did the Friday prayer leader offer a different perspective.

While acknowledging the doubts surrounding negotiation, the tone of Tehran’s sermon focused more on the talk’s symbolic “demonstrative” nature, an effort to project an image of the Islamic Republic as neither intimidated by pressure nor opposed to dialogue.

In the absence of the Supreme Leader from the public scene and amid his silence on Trump’s proposal for direct talks, Friday prayers across the country became a stage for expressing a spectrum of narratives, from explicit rejection in Mashhad and Qom to cautious pragmatism in the south and, ultimately, to a defense of dialogue as rationality in Tehran.

This mix of voices is not confusion – it is a deliberate strategy by Khamenei. He uses contradictory messages to create a controlled unity, allowing the Islamic Republic to both negotiate and resist without committing to a clear final stance.