Seyyed Mohammad Ali Abtahi, for those who know Iran well, is a key figure in its historical trajectory. A cleric, reformist politician, and former vice president under Mohammad Khatami, Abtahi was one of the first high-ranking officials to embrace blogging and social media in the early 2000s, earning him a reputation as someone who connected with the digitally savvy youth at the time.

To this day, he remains one of the most outspoken voices from within the Islamic Republic’s reformist current: critical of the status quo, yet committed to the preservation of Iran’s sovereignty. In a moment when many foreign war hawks expected Iran's reformists to stay silent, Abtahi instead emerged with a sharp rebuke of "Israel’s" strategy, and a defense of Iran's national unity.

Al Mayadeen English spoke with Seyyed Abtahi over the phone, where he expressed that the Israeli war on Iran in June was not just a military misstep but a profound failure of cultural and political understanding. 

"Well, here Netanyahu and Israel made a serious miscalculation, or simply did not understand Iran. What exactly happened here? I think that the Israelis have had extensive security and intelligence forces inside Iran for many years, and they came to a very wrong analysis of what was going on inside the country."

Abtahi pins the faulty analysis of Iran on collaborators, saying, "Their liaisons and representatives inside Iran, much like those abroad, perhaps did not hold a wrong analysis themselves, but they conveyed a flawed assessment to the Israelis."

That flawed picture, he says, conflated legitimate domestic grievances with an appetite for foreign intervention. Though some Iranians were unhappy with successive governments and their performance, this does not mean they would accept foreign interference. "All of this took place within the Iranian family," Abtahi told Al Mayadeen English, "and the notion that someone from abroad would come in and attack that family was naturally unacceptable to a nation with so long a history."

For Abtahi, some of this error goes back to a deep misunderstanding of the people of Iran, whose identity stretches back thousands of years. "Some of the countries in our region are not yet a hundred years old, whereas our own country has a history of several thousand years and has endured many hardships; the two are vastly different," he firmly stated.

A nation’s defiance

Rather than splintering, Iran’s social fabric tightened under fire, according to Abtahi, who attributed this cohesion to a clear sense of internal versus external antagonism:

"The external understanding was that the dissatisfaction of the people had been building little by little, and at some point it would surface and change the regime, but the reality of Iranian society was and is not that, and anyone who lives in Iran knows this reality does not exist."

Though for years, there was room for much concern, many of those who once protested against the government were now protesting against the war, all in national unity. Many still have their critiques, but as Abtahi explains, the criticism is for inside Iran and not to the benefit of the enemy.

Not a victory to be taken lightly

Related News

Iran, Iraq vow to uphold security pact amid regional tensions

Araghchi to Trump: You can't claim peace while provoking endless wars

As Abtahi told Al Mayadeen English, Iran was in the middle of negotiations with the US when the war began, and taking into consideration "Israel's" position as the region's military powerhouse, with the US also entering the picture later on and joining in the attacks, along with expectations of the capacities their forces possess, Iran emerged with its system intact, "and this is why this victory is not to be taken lightly."

Asked about the progress Iran made in its deterrence capabilities, Abtahi raises an interesting issue: that of how the region has sat on the sidelines against "Israel". "For the region, for Arab countries, they have always felt joy when Israel would come under attack," however, "As Iranians, we don't expect that Iran should do this on its own."

More pointedly, he says, "Our expectation is not that we alone strike Israel while regional countries move toward peace or coexistence with it, all while their peoples cheer Iran for its strikes. Our expectation is that we also cheer while other countries do the same."

Negotiation or no deal? Charting Iran’s path with the West

When the dust of war settles, Tehran faces a transformed diplomatic landscape, and Abtahi insists it cannot simply pick up where talks left off. "When one country is negotiating and another country comes and bombs it in the middle of negotiations, you can't pressure that country to go back to the negotiating table, because it was already there [when they started bombing]." He argues that any return to the table must reckon with the aggression itself.

"The countries that attacked Iran have to say why they attacked and what we should negotiate about now, albeit I am fundamentally in favor of dialogue; under any conditions, dialogue is one of the reformists' main tenets."

Resuming dialogue on new terms

For Abtahi, the old nuclear framework has lost its relevance. "Now, Mr. Trump claims that Iran’s nuclear capacity is out of service, but it makes no sense to negotiate over a nuclear program that effectively no longer exists. What remains is that the dialogue must discuss getting rid of the evil presence of Israel and America from the region and from Iran," he explained to Al Mayadeen English.

Here, however, Abtahi makes a compelling point regarding the timing of the aggression. The very timing of "Israel’s" strikes, meaning while Iran was still engaged in diplomatic negotiations, exposed what he calls a deeper deception. "When a country is bombed in the middle of negotiations," he says, "then surely the negotiations were a ruse to begin with, intended to destroy the government. And that government wasn’t destroyed."

He further questions what future talks could even be based on, especially given US President Trump’s repeated claims that Iran’s nuclear program is no longer active. "I don’t know what the link to negotiations even is anymore or what the framework would be," Abtahi says. "At best, it’s about lifting sanctions; if there’s readiness to lift them, at least that could be the basis for a real dialogue." But he warns that diplomacy cannot operate on predictable terms when facing a government like "Israel’s". "Israel has no rules, no diplomatic framework. It’s completely unpredictable, just as it was in its wars on Gaza," he adds. "It’s a new Hitler—more lawless and more bloodthirsty than the old one."

Leadership and public confidence: Filling the post-war vacuum

In the uneasy lull following the 12 days of war, Iranians found themselves starved for direction, until a familiar presence restored a sense of equilibrium when Sayyed Ali Khamenei appeared on the night of Ashura, a key day in the Muslim calendar.

Abtahi describes the moment succinctly:

"In the post-war atmosphere, there arose a suspension in society. There was no one to speak, and usually over these years, whenever a problem was to be raised more prominently, that issue would attract attention… that issue would be the Leader's statements. And this vacuum of the Leader's perspectives during those twelve days really unsettled society." 

آقا آمد، با ایران آمد.
در اوج بازی روانی دشمن، آرامبخش ترین اتفاق، بودنش و دیده شدنش بود. pic.twitter.com/hjwquxeDn1

— Mohamad Ali Abtahi (@abtahi_m) July 5, 2025

Though Sayyed Khamenei had delivered speeches during the war, he did so through pre-recorded messages, which is why his direct presence on the night of Ashura, when he was under direct threat from "Israel" and the US, was so important.

That is why when Sayyed Khamenei appeared at the Hussainiyah, that vacuum was at last filled. "His presence and being seen by the people brought a great deal of psychological relief to society. It at least made them feel that they were emerging from that vacuum and suspension."

For Abtahi, the episode underscores the dual pillars of Iran’s stability: the unbreakable bond of its people and the enduring weight of its leadership’s voice.