Iran’s War with the US Exposes Deep Clerical Divisions Over Escalation and Diplomacy

The war between Iran and the United States is not just a battlefield clash but a political rupture laid bare within Iran’s clerical establishment. Hardline voices demand sharp escalation and threaten strikes on residential areas in Gulf Arab states if attacked again. At the same time, liberal clerics and human rights advocates warn that the mounting human and economic toll makes negotiation not only necessary but a public demand.

Mahmoud Nabavian, a hardline cleric and MP, issued stark threats that any further US attack would provoke Iranian strikes targeting civilians in Arab countries south of the Persian Gulf. He also taunted President Donald Trump to “admit defeat.” This militant stance reflects a faction within Iran’s ruling class determined to press the conflict despite heavy costs.

In contrast, Mohsen Rohami, a liberal cleric and human rights lawyer, condemned the war’s devastating impact on Iran’s industrial infrastructure, including steel plants, refineries, and energy facilities. Rohami emphasized that peace should be the default state and cautioned against conflating public support for the regime with support for endless war. He argued that the decision to negotiate rests with Iran’s top leadership and enjoys broad popular backing.

This internal divide extends beyond clerics to lawmakers. Hardline MP Ali Khezrian insists Iran will “certainly support the war” and has halted all talks with Washington, including indirect communications. Rohami countered that personal views should not be mistaken for official policy and highlighted the Supreme National Security Council’s role in managing negotiations.

Meanwhile, Tehran is pushing a controversial plan to assert new control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint that currently handles 20% of the world’s oil and gas. Iranian parliamentarians propose barring Israeli ships outright and requiring vessels from the US and its allies to pay war reparations before passage. This move aims to leverage the strait for revenue and strategic advantage but risks further international escalation.

Ali Nikzad, deputy speaker of Iran’s parliament, framed this “management” of Hormuz as historic as the 1951 oil nationalization, signaling Tehran’s intent not to return to pre-war norms. The plan would also require all ships to use the name “Persian Gulf” and allocate toll revenues to military and economic development.

The US has responded with a naval blockade of Iranian ports, tightening the squeeze on Tehran’s oil exports and deepening the economic crisis wrought by war. Iranian oil production is already shrinking as storage fills and tankers cluster near export hubs.

A commentary on the Asr Iran website criticized hardliners for strategic missteps, including underestimating US and Israeli resolve and ignoring the war’s heavy costs to Iran itself. It warned that the political divisions in democracies tend to narrow during wartime, suggesting Tehran’s adversaries may be more united than Iranian hawks assume.

This internal discord within Iran’s leadership reveals a regime grappling with the brutal realities of a war that threatens its stability. The hardliners’ refusal to negotiate clashes with growing calls for diplomacy from within, even as Tehran doubles down on controlling the Strait of Hormuz to extract maximum leverage. The stakes are high: miscalculations could deepen Iran’s losses and close off any chance for a favorable resolution.

We will be watching closely as Iran’s clerics and lawmakers wrestle with the costs of conflict and the future of a war that has already reshaped the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf.