Despite alleged assassination plots against its officers, Iran’s leadership doesn’t shy away from readily embracing certain American policy changes. Not forgetting, these policies hail from an administration they’ve been rumored to target. A point to ponder is the seemingly odd acceptance of these shifts by a government that has been on the receiving end of aggressive foreign actions.
The enthusiasm with which Iran’s state media house has embraced President Donald Trump’s decisions is uncanny. Initiatives to freeze expenditure on foreign support, and a bold move to overhaul — possibly dissolve — the U.S. Agency for International Development are gratefully received. These changes arguably stem the flow of funds to those opposed to Iran’s ruling Shiite theocracy. At home, pro-democracy advocates and similar activists, previously financed by such programs in the U.S.’s global democratic outreach, could be left in the cold.
While the world watches the Iran-U.S. dynamics unfold, there seems to be a signal from Iranian officials that they are foreseeing a potential communication from Trump. Said communication pertains to negotiating over Iran’s rapidly progressing nuclear program. A lot is at stake here: billions of dollars that Iran could access if sanctions were lifted, and the ominous potential for a program on the edge of enriching weapons-grade uranium.
Despite signing an executive order to impose his ‘maximum pressure on Iran’ policy, Trump gave indications of his willingness to engage with Iran diplomatically. Ordinary Iranians, however, are left anxious about the unfolding implications of these international politics on their lives.
Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted alarmingly to an all-time low of 850,000 to $1 following Trump’s order. This reflects the troubling economic instability afflicting ordinary Iranians. Remarkably, just about ten years ago, the exchange rate hovered at 32,000 rials to $1. The current economic atmosphere is testimony to the failed diplomatic relations.
Maryam Faraji, a young waitress from northern Tehran, expresses that the U.S. changes might embolden Iranian hardliners to tighten control as they suspect lessened U.S. capacity to support those Iranians aspiring for freedom. Thus, U.S. action, or inaction rather, inspires a perilous environment for the very freedom-seekers it historically sought to assist.
The state-run IRNA news agency posited that this ‘budget-cut for foreign-based opposition’ could likely influence the dynamic between Tehran and Washington. This sentiment was shared by several local publications. The conservative Hamshhari daily, for instance, depicted Iran’s opposition as ‘counterrevolutionaries’ who were initially joyous at Trump’s election — a harbinger, they thought, of the Islamic Republic’s demise.
The newspaper insinuated that these seeming turnabouts had thrown the opposition off balance. The opposition, described as having been ‘celebrating’ Trump’s election as if it presaged the ‘last days of life of the Islamic Republic’, were now grappling with the unexpected reality of funding cuts.
Even the liberal-leaning newspaper Hammihan compared the effect of the funding ordeal on the theocratic government’s adversaries abroad to a ‘cold shower’, mirroring the sentiment expressed by the Foreign Ministry. Esmail Bagahei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, cynically pointed out that the financial aid wasn’t charitable, but was rather a quid pro quo for services rendered.
Bagahei stated this as evidence of U.S. meddling in Iran’s domestic affairs, specifically criticizing the Biden administration’s approach towards Iran, which relied heavily on financial pressure. Yet what remains nebulous is how these changes will impact Iranian activists and opponents of the regime.
The Biden administration, in 2024, requested $65 million for NERD after Congress had already provided over $600 million for the fund, as reported by the Congressional Research Service. Past allocations had been channeled towards journalistic training and human rights reporting, digital access support during government-led internet blackouts, and other key concerns.
Interestingly, Iran noticed the U.S.’s conspicuously indirect critique of the Islamic Republic during a United Nations Human Rights Council discussion in Geneva. Observers within Iran’s government are consequently hopeful of the possibility of negotiations, a sentiment Trump echoed on his campaign trail.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of the state, had also hinted at the potential for dialogue with the U.S. in a speech delivered in September. More recently, his expressions were less enthusiastic, as he reminded his audience to be wary of nefarious agendas ‘lurking behind diplomatic smiles’.
In words that ring true for international politics, Khamenei warned about treading carefully in matters of negotiation, a caution that applies to all international relationships. His words epitomize the undercurrent of wariness that defines the Iran-U.S. relations under the current administrations. This story continues to unfold amidst many ambiguities and surprises yet to reveal themselves.