Missiles or Diplomacy? Tehran’s Media War Exposes Deep Regime Divide
Iran’s state outlets clash over how to avoid war, revealing a leadership split between the IRGC’s militarism and the government’s desperate push for diplomacy.
As tensions rise over a possible confrontation with Israel, Iranian state media have turned against each other in a rare display of open division. On Sunday, October 12, newspapers aligned with rival factions of the ruling establishment waged a propaganda battle over whether Iran should rely on missiles or diplomacy to navigate its growing isolation.
On one side stand the hardline outlets echoing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), rejecting any form of negotiation under the slogan “Missiles, not dialogue.” On the other, pro-government dailies sympathetic to President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration argue that diplomacy remains essential to prevent war and economic collapse.
This sharp contrast underscores the regime’s deep strategic confusion — a leadership unable to decide whether to escalate or de-escalate at a moment of extreme vulnerability.
The IRGC Line: Security Before Diplomacy
Hardline publications including Khorasan, Javan, and Farhikhtegan fiercely attacked any calls for compromise. Khorasan accused former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif of parroting “Western propaganda” by suggesting that “the people matter more than missiles.” Farhikhtegan labeled Zarif’s remarks “a fake polarization,” equating defense of missile power with defense of the nation itself.
Javan, closely tied to the Revolutionary Guard, mocked government spokespersons for “selling peace” and described their appeal to “prevent war” as populist rhetoric. Together, these outlets amplify the IRGC’s long-standing narrative that military deterrence must precede diplomacy, portraying dialogue as weakness and submission.
The Government Line: Diplomacy to Prevent War
In sharp contrast, newspapers linked to the Pezeshkian government — including Arman Melli, Arman Emrooz, and Shargh — defended engagement with the international community.
Arman Melli cited the recent approval of the CFT bill by the Expediency Council, accusing hardline lawmakers of “ignorance and obstruction.” Former MP Ahmad Shirzad was quoted saying that “the extremist current is merely tolerated, not dominant,” hinting at the regime’s fragile balance of power.
Arman Emrouz went further, warning that renewed opposition to the FATF amounted to “repeating past mistakes” and called for “rebuilding Iran’s financial relations with the world.”
Meanwhile, Shargh published two analytical reports — one reflecting on Vladimir Putin’s remarks about Israel’s message to Iran, and another by economist Hossein Raghfar, who identified rent-seeking networks and currency manipulation as key drivers of inflation. Both reports point to the government’s effort to reframe diplomacy and economic reform as survival necessities.
Strategic Confusion at the Top
The regime’s conflicting narratives reflect not just media pluralism but a fundamental split in the system’s strategic mindset. The IRGC seeks to consolidate control through militarization and confrontation, while the government struggles to justify even limited engagement as a means of avoiding regional war and financial collapse.
Even the semi-reformist Ham-Mihan acknowledged that the regime is trapped in internal deadlock, writing that “no initiative is visible in either foreign or economic policy.”
This paralysis has widened following Putin’s revelation that Israel sent messages to Tehran — a development that deepened suspicion within Iranian power circles about Moscow’s reliability.
A Regime at War With Itself
What began as a debate over the CFT and FATF has morphed into an open clash over the very identity of the regime: whether it should posture as a revolutionary power or seek temporary relief through negotiation.
The simultaneous invocation of “missile power” and “diplomacy for peace” exposes a deeper anxiety — a leadership aware that war could ignite domestic unrest it can no longer contain.
The propaganda crossfire across state media thus reveals not diversity but disarray: a fractured regime, oscillating between defiance and desperation, with no clear strategy for survival.