Iranian lawmaker sparks legal storm after revealing Khamenei letters on US deal

Legal proceedings have been initiated in Iran after a hardline lawmaker publicly disclosed private correspondence he claims shows Mojtaba Khamenei's opposition to a memorandum of understanding with Washington. Mahmoud Nabavian, a member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the state-run Khabar Network that the correspondence, dated April 5, April 19, and May 24, indicated Khamenei's clear opposition to any MoU that did not recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium.

“

What has taken shape in the Pakistan negotiations is fundamentally different from what was supposed to happen and from what constituted the condition for the legitimacy of the negotiations.

Nabavian further alleged that Khamenei stated Iran would manage the Strait of Hormuz independently, despite ongoing talks with Oman. He claimed Khamenei had set 11 conditions for Iran-US negotiations, including the right to enrich uranium, lifting sanctions, releasing frozen assets, and receiving compensation from the U.S. Nabavian asserted these terms were incompatible with current talks and thus against the supreme leader's wishes.

The remarks were abruptly cut off during the live broadcast. The Iranian Broadcasting Corporation's public relations department announced it would pursue legal action against Nabavian, stating that publishing incomplete state documents violated the law. The department also expressed regret for the guest's disregard for broadcasting rules and accepted the resignation of the network's director general, citing negligence in professional management.

“

expresses regret over this guest’s disregard for the rules of live broadcasting, accepts the resignation of the relevant director general of the network and will take the necessary disciplinary action for negligence in professional management.

Despite the legal repercussions, Nabavian took to X/Twitter to assert he was "expressing the Leader’s perspective" on his opposition to the memorandum of understanding. He claimed the "important part" was the examination of the text, which would have clarified the Leader's opposition. He expressed hope for steadfastness in following the Leader.

“

expressing the Leader’s perspective on why he opposes the Iran-America memorandum of understanding when it was left incomplete. The important part of it was the examination of the memorandum’s text, which would have made the reason for the Leader’s opposition even clearer. Inshallah, may God keep us steadfast in following our dear Leader.