Iran has finally admitted: the attack was an "internal mistake" carried out by hardliners
According to sources, Iran privately confessed to the U.S.: the attack on ships near Hormuz was orchestrated by a "hardline faction," aimed at sabotaging negotiations. Iran described it as a "mistake" and expressed its willingness to continue talks.
The significance of this statement goes far beyond a simple "we were wrong." In fact, it reveals three crucial facts about Iran's internal situation:
First, Iran has finally acknowledged that it was the first to violate the memorandum. Whether intentional or accidental, the attack on the merchant vessels was indeed carried out by Iran. Previously, Iran neither admitted nor denied responsibility—now it has finally come clean.
Second, the rift between Iran’s hardliners and moderates has become so deep it can no longer be concealed. The timing of the attack was highly suspicious—just as Iranian President Pezeshkian had landed in Iraq for a funeral, hardliners launched the attack on merchant ships, forcing him to abruptly cut short his visit and return home to deal with the fallout. This was no coincidence; it resembled a targeted power interception. While the moderates made progress in diplomatic negotiations, the hardliners created trouble behind the scenes, sending a clear message to the president: you negotiate all you want—I’ll do what I please.
Third, there has been a noticeable shift in Iran’s internal power structure. The fact that moderates dare to publicly criticize the hardliners’ actions as “a mistake” indicates that reformists are gaining ground in internal power struggles. In Iran’s political system, admitting the existence of an “errant faction” internally is akin to opening a crack for external observers—this is reformists asserting control over narrative interpretation.
Nobel laureate in Economics Thomas Schelling once wrote in *The Strategy of Conflict*: when one side begins disclosing internal power dynamics to the outside world, it usually signals a desire for external pressure to intervene in their internal balance. By publicly branding the hardliners as an “errant faction,” the moderates are sending a clear signal to the outside world: the agreement can be honored—if you help me keep these internal troublemakers in check.
Admitting fault, mending relations, continuing negotiations, and securing the benefits of sanctions relief—this is the calculation of Iran’s moderate faction. But the hardliners won’t let this agreement proceed smoothly. Going forward, the U.S.-Iran game will no longer be fought solely on the battlefield, but also within Iran’s power center. The struggle between moderates and hardliners will directly determine the fate of this agreement—and of the entire conflict. ????
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1870373171281928/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.