Kayhan’s daily’s frequent attacks on pro-reform and even hardline governments is well known in Tehran. However, many agree that the hardline paper has launched its offensive against the Pezeshkian administration unusually early.
Kayhan and its managing editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, began attacking Pezeshkian even before his cabinet was finalized. Shariatmadari criticized the president's selection of ministers early on, targeting his choices before they were officially confirmed. He went further, accusing Pezeshkian of appointing aides and vice presidents who he labeled "political criminals" and supporters of "seditionists" — a term referring to those who backed popular protests.
A report on Etemad Online website on Wednesday suggested that Hossein Shariatmadari has undergone a "factory reset," returning to his familiar tactic of launching destructive attacks on the president and his administration. The report followed Shariatmadari’s accusation that the Pezeshkian administration has deviated from its commitment to Khamenei’s ideals.
Under Shariatmadari, Kayhan has worked hard to present itself as a media outlet closely aligned with Khamenei’s views. However, this portrayal is not entirely accurate, as other newspapers, such as Ettela'at, Jomhouri Eslami, and Khorasan, are also financially and editorially linked to Khamenei’s office yet maintain different editorial perspectives. This diversity of viewpoints among pro-Khamenei outlets highlights a complex media strategy by the Supreme Leader.
In several reports Iranian journalists and politicians pointed out that what Kayhan writes solely reflects Shariatmadari's ideas and biases rather than reflecting Khamenei's views. Others believe that the paper has a function of being the ‘attack dog’ for Khamenei’s court.
According to Etemad Online, Kayhan's attacks on Pezeshkian seem particularly strange given Khamenei’s favorable stance toward the new president and his cabinet. In recent instances, Khamenei has personally shown support for figures like Vice President Zarif and Health Minister Zafarghandi, who were both targets of Shariatmadari's harsh criticism. This disconnect between Kayhan's hostility and Khamenei's approval raises questions about the motivations behind the newspaper's stance.
The Kayhan whose line of thought often resembles those of ultraconservative Paydari Party pretended that the Pezeshkian administration faces no financial shortages. This was refuted by the President during an interview with the state TV in which he said his government had no funds in the Treasury and he had to borrow money from the National Development Fund to start his work.
In summary, Kayhan's opposition to the Pezeshkian administration centers on several key issues: Shariatmadari's criticism of Pezeshkian's decision to reinstate academics and students dismissed for supporting the 2022 protests, his objections to the appointment of Abbas Araghchi as Foreign Minister and the inclusion of former officials like Javad Zarif in the cabinet, and his negative views toward two reformist-leaning ministers. This broad opposition reflects Kayhan's discontent with Pezeshkian’s choices.
In another report on Wednesday, Etemad Online quoted reformist activist Mohammad Reza Jalaipour, who refuted Kayhan's claims, stating that neither Khamenei's Office nor the IRGC have plans to confront the Pezeshkian administration. He emphasized that the new government is a result of a "win-win" collaboration between the executive branch and Khamenei’s office. Jalaipour expressed optimism about the government's future, noting the Supreme Leader's support.
Meanwhile, an online campaign is calling for Shariatmadari’s resignation, suggesting he’s "tired after 30 years of hard work."
Baku has been demanding a corridor through southern Armenia to connect Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan enclave separated by Armenian territory.
As commentators and pundits in Tehran were criticizing Russian policy this week, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi issued a post on X on Thursday saying, "Regional peace, security and stability is not merely a preference, but a pillar of our national security. Any threat from North, South, East, or West to territorial integrity of our neighbors or redrawing of boundaries is totally unacceptable and a red line for Iran."
Moscow and Baku want Russia to monitor and control the corridor which can serve as a significant route for trade and energy transport between Asia and Europe, but Yerevan and Tehran are opposed to such a scheme and argue that even if a transport route were to be established, Armenia should have control over it.
Former chairman of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, claimed in a Thursday X post that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s push for the establishment of the Zangezur corridor is a “preemptive move” to pressure Iran. According to Falahatpisheh, this is intended to deter Pezeshkian's government from opening "communication channels" with Washington.
Putin is aware that, despite Iran’s failed pro-Russia and pro-China policy, the key message of the recent presidential election was a call for de-escalation in relations with the West and a move away from dependence on Eastern powers, he argued.
Similarly, Iranian journalist Maryam Salari argues that Moscow's disregard for Tehran’s opposition to the Zangezur corridor must be understood in the context of Masoud Pezeshkian's election and his emphasis on negotiating with the West to lift U.S. sanctions.
“Raisi's Eastward-focused foreign policy had reassured Putin about Iran’s stance, but Pezeshkian's candidacy and his pledge to prioritize negotiations with the West to lift sanctions have unsettled Russia's regional plans,” Salari posted on X.
Russia’s prolonged delay in signing a 20-year comprehensive cooperation agreement with Iran, despite the support Iran has provided in the Ukraine conflict, has increasingly frustrated the Islamic Republic. This hesitation from Moscow has sparked irritation in Tehran, especially given the significant assistance Iran has offered.
“Russia has never cared about Iran's interests … This corridor blocks Iran's access to Europe through Armenia,” the conservative former lawmaker Ali Motahari tweeted Thursday and urged the government of Masoud Pezeshkian to be “perceptive” regarding the establishment of Zangezur corridor.
Tehran recently summoned the Russian Ambassador, Alexi Dedov, to the foreign ministry over the matter and congratulated Ukraine last month on its independence day. The move could be interpreted as an overture to Ukraine and an affront to Russia, according to some pundits.
In an editorial Thursday entitled “Russia’s Geopolitical Coup Against Iran”, the reformist Arman-e Emrooz daily criticized the foreign ministry’s reaction to Russia’s insistence on establishing the corridor.
“The foreign ministry’s reaction has not been sufficiently decisive and deterrent despite the irreparable damage caused by Russia's position which practically leads to the geopolitical suffocation of Iran at its the northern borders,” Arman-e Emrouz contended.
Not only reformists but also the media linked with the Revolutionary Guard have been criticizing the shift in Moscow’s policy.
“Russia has been also advised to avoid taking measures that may impair the strategic relations between Moscow and Tehran, because the idea of the Zangezur corridor will create a new flashpoint near the very delicate boundaries of northwestern Iran,” the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) linked Tasnim news agency warned Wednesday in an editorial on its English portal.
The Persian version of Tasnim’s editorial on the subject was stronger in tone, stressing that “Iran will not accept any changes in its borders and its security peripheries” and underlines that “confronting international bullies is a fundamental strategy” of the Islamic Republic. The editorial also called the corridor “imaginary” and reminded the summoning of the Russian ambassador.
Iranian journalist Mohammad Parsi also took to X to protest that the Islamic Republic still considers Russia as a “friend and strategic ally” althoughMoscow sided with Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, stood alongside the United States when the UN Security Council passed resolutions against Iran, supported European sanctions, and supports Azerbaijan’s demand regarding Zangezur. “What does this mean?” he asked.
“Russia’s illusions and problems should not distract our country from its own national interests,” Hadi Mohammadi, another Iranian journalist, posted on X.
The Iran International report titled “Will Iranian Proxies Target Israel In September Or October?” was the only open source news report prior to October 7 that defined a specific time period in which the Islamic Republic’s proxy Hamas would unleash its massacre in southern Israel.
A little over four weeks after publication of the Iran International article, the horrific violence of the US-designated terrorist movement Hamas produced mass rape, the murder of nearly 1,200 people and the abduction of over 250 people in southern Israel.
Iran International sat down with Carmon to revisit his article and hear his current thoughts about the Iranian regime-animated conflict that has engulfed the Middle East.
“It will not end as long as America stands by its enemies and not its allies,” Carmon said in his typically blunt fashion.
He continued, “The Obama administration sought to promote Iran’s role in the Muslim world. The policy has not really changed despite the fact that Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, Houthis, in addition to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, are actively fighting the United States.”
Carmon observed, “To add insult to injury, Qatari authorities have repeatedly stated they would not permit the US to launch any attack on Iran from the CENTCOM base at Al Udeid Air Base. This reflects the administration’s broader Middle East policy of distancing itself from its allies while appeasing its adversaries."
For Carmon, America’s allies in the region are the anti-Iran regime opposition within Iran, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan and Israel.
Carmon, who speaks fluent Arabic and served as the counter-terrorism advisor to two Israeli prime ministers, has long had a singularity of purpose about exposing the world’s worst state-sponsor of terrorism—the clerical regime in Iran—and its Islamist strategic partners, including the Sunni regime in Qatar.
In January, the The Wall Street Journal wrote about Carmon and his institution in an article titled “When Terrorists Talk, They Listen. Memri, the Middle East Media Research Institute, fights Hamas by telling the world what its leaders are saying.”
The roots of Carmon’s forecast about the Hamas-Iran-Qatar troika invasion of Israel can be found as early as 2018 in his essay titled Is Gaza In Need Of Qatar's Aid?
In it, he wrote regarding Qatar’s funding of Hamas “the destructive results of which are bound to come sooner or later.”
While many Mideast experts could not envision an alliance between a Sunni Islamist state like Qatar with the revolutionary Shi’ite regime in Tehran, Carmon laid out in plain terms that “Islamist ideology” serves as the common denominator for the rogue regimes across the region. Religious ideology matters greatly when it comes to what drives human and state behavior.
“Qatar is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the Islamic Movement in Israel, and an ally of Turkey, which considers itself an enemy of Israel and which under President Erdoğan adheres to the Islamist ideology that seeks to annihilate it, as well as an ally of Iran,” he wrote in his 2018 essay.
Carmon said regarding the October 7 attack that “Iran provided the training, tactics and weapons. Everything that has to do with the actual attack.”
When asked about the reactions to his analysis before October 7, Carmon said, “Generally, it was not taken seriously. It was contrary to everything they heard from intelligence to the media, from research institutes and think tanks in Israel headed by former chiefs of intelligence.”
He said his article went “contrary to the NGOs, who visited Gaza and told them Gaza is like the Brazilian favelas or worse while in reality Gaza was a thriving Mediterranean city developing immensely.” MEMRI ran a series of articles with video footage in January and February this year that debunked the notion that Hamas-controlled Gaza was immersed in a “Suffocating occupation” and a “Humanitarian disaster” prior to October 7. Carmon noted that Gaza Strip contained “institutes of higher education, malls, towers, five-star hotels, luxury restaurants, water parks, hospitals, automobile dealers for luxury cars, zoos and a musical center.”
He stressed that his warning contrasted with the views of the Israel Defense Forces. “The military told everybody that they [Hamas] were deterred. So it was perceived as a political attack rather than a professional assessment based on evident material from open sources that everyone can see.”
When asked who listened to his analysis, he said the people in MEMRI and Iran International. Carmon said the strengths of his analysis “is taking open sources seriously. And here I have to say something very important. And the arguments against it were primarily racist. The argument goes as follows: Arabs just talk and are not to be taken seriously. Arabs are for sale. We are buying them. Arabs are fools. We can help them [in Gaza] to be a counter to the Palestinian Authority.”
Regarding the Hamas psyche, he said, “It is not hard for me to go into the heart of a killer.”
Carmon seems to have insight into human psychology—a sort of sixth sense—that he attributes to his understanding of empathy.
In short, he jumps into the heads of the Islamist enemies of the West.
He said the consensus racist argument also pooh-poohed Arab military capabilities: “They can’t operate mobilized units because they are primitive.”
Carmon said, “Now we know they attacked with 6,000 people [on October 7].”
“I took them seriously and I believe they mean it. I believe this group of extremists is not for sale. I believe they are not stupid. They have advanced capabilities. I could see it in the videos.”
Carmon asks: “Is it necessary to know Arabic? No. But it is always good to know languages” and, he stresses, “to have an open heart” about out-of-box thinking that goes against mainstream beliefs.
Jerry Coyne, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Ecology and Evolution, Committee on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago, met with Carmon and this writer in September 2023. He would, in January 2024, blog about the meeting, Carmon’s prediction and the Iran International article.
Coyne issued his own early warning for the West in his piece: “If intelligence officials in the West aren’t reading MEMRI on a regular basis, they’re making a mistake. As you see, even the Biden administration has been gulled by the Middle East, and this happens pretty regularly. [Secretary of State] Antony Blinken is an especially notable victim, and he passes his gullibility on to [President Joe] Biden.”