In Iran, a Range of Reactions to Netanyahu’s Speech and Nuclear Talks

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s  unrelenting condemnation of the nuclear agreement being negotiated with Iran was received with ovations in Congress and by audiences at AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby. In Iran, however, the response has been more varied and more nuanced.

There were, of course, the usual condemnations and dismissals of the speech. But some contrarian voices have emerged as well. Kayhan, a conservative newspaper that often (though not always) reflects the views of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (who appoints its editor), had suggested in recent commentaries that the apparent division between the Israeli prime minister and the U.S. president is a ploy to weaken Iranian resolve and that the two are united in their hostility toward Iran. In light of Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks, however, Kayhan is struggling to sustain this argument.

Iran’s supreme leader has continued his social media commentary against Israel and Zionism. “Increasing global hatred of #Israel is a sign of divine help. Today Israel is more isolated & its supporters are more embattled #ShutDownAIPAC,” he tweeted on Tuesday. This is standard fare for his Twitter account. But even as he made such comments, Iran’s team continued negotiations with the U.S. and its partners.

Before Mr. Netanyahu spoke, Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign policy adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei, described the Israeli prime minister as a “vagabond” and accused him of “fabricating lies.” After Mr. Netanyahu’s address, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, similarly condemned the Israeli prime minister and said that the U.S. Congress has surrendered its independence and is “at the service of a hollow regime.” But Mr. Larijani noted that President Barack Obama had pointed out “distortions” in Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, and he suggested that Mr. Netanyahu–military threats against Iran notwithstanding–is running scared.

Meanwhile, Iranian media and the public have been fascinated that the U.S. president pointedly did not meet with the Israeli prime minister, that the U.S. vice president was away during Mr. Netanyahu’s visit, and that the U.S. secretary of state was in Montreux, Switzerland, negotiating a “bad deal” with the “enemy” just as Israel’s prime minister addressed Congress. Until recently Iranians had been convinced that the Israeli lobby runs the U.S. government (an assertion that my interrogators made repeatedly when I was held in Evin Prison in 2007).

Political commentator Ali Mottahar-Nia argued in the newspaper Iran that Mr. Netanyahu went to Congress because his warnings had failed to persuade Western officials and “all his arrows aimed at wrecking a deal have gone awry.” Another commentator wrote in the newspaper Shahrvand that Mr. Netanyahu and some of Iran’s Arab neighbors, along with nay-sayers in the Islamic Republic, oppose a nuclear agreement because they reject détente and an improvement of relations between Iran and the West.

A similar view was expressed by former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who now heads the Expediency Council, which adjudicates differences between parliament and Iran’s constitutional watchdog, the Council of Guardians. Speaking in support of Iran’s negotiating team, which some conservatives have accused of selling out their country behind closed doors, Mr. Rafsanjani suggested that domestic opponents of a nuclear deal and Mr. Netanyahu are “speaking with one voice.” He also said that Mr. Netanyahu threatens Mr. Obama “over there” and that “the concerned” at home say they will reveal secrets. “What secrets?” he asked. Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri, head of the supreme leader’s inspectorate bureau, voiced similar support for Iran’s negotiating team.

As the deadline approaches for a nuclear deal, debate will continue in Iran on the implications of Mr. Netanyahu’s speech.

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author.

This article was originally published in The Wall Street Journal's The Washington Wire.