Since the American Israeli aggression against Iran on 28 February of last month, the nighttime gatherings have played a role in showing a state of popular alignment around the system, after hostile forces had bet on the collapse of the system of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) following the elimination of its leaders on the first day of the war. However, over time, these gatherings have turned into a space exploited by hardliners to impose their extremist discourse toward both the domestic and external arenas, which embarrasses the Iranian authorities and undermines their narrative about the unity of political currents behind them.

In recent days, voices from both conservative and reformist camps have begun warning about the danger of extremist dominance over these platforms, considering that the continuation of this discourse threatens national unity and is being used as a tool to mobilize against the moderate current within the authorities.

Media in the hands of extremists

In this context, the Iranian news agency Khabar Online issued strong criticism of the Broadcasting Authority and official media platforms, accusing them of giving wide space to hardliners and broadcasting statements insulting politicians, despite their repeated talk about national unity. The agency considered that the official media discourse has become contradictory to calls for internal cohesion by allowing voices that deepen division.

In the newspaper Shargh, reformist politician Mostafa Hashemi Taba attacked extremists, accusing them of focusing on sabotaging the economic efforts of the government of President Masoud Pezeshkian and distorting them, despite the circumstances of war. He argued that some hardliners deal with the continuation of tension and conflict as part of their political project, because their influence and status are tied to keeping the country under the pressure of sanctions and crises.

Preserving the division of society

For its part, the reformist Eteemad Daily newspaper criticized the behavior of hardliners in the nighttime gatherings, questioning how the popular base can be protected from currents that benefit from war and sanctions. It wrote that war is not an end in itself but a means to protect stability and national rights, arguing that forces that live on permanent tension oppose any negotiations or settlements that could achieve political or economic relief for Iran.

Criticism was not limited to reformists only, but also came from within the conservative current. Mohammad-Kazem Anbarlouei criticized the raising of controversial issues such as hijab, negotiations with the West, and the prosecution of political figures within public gatherings, stressing that preserving the unity of the Iranian street must be a priority.

These positions reveal a clear division inside Iran between a hardline current that sees the continuation of war and tension as a source of influence and interests, and a moderate current that bets on de-escalation and diplomacy to achieve political and economic stability in order to improve the lives of Iranians who have been victims of extremist policies.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar