The final day of nuclear negotiations in Geneva between Iran and the so-called P5+1 stretched into the post-midnight hours of Sunday in Tehran. While newspapers in the Iranian capital customarily go to press by 10 pm for distribution the following morning, the reformist Etemaad and Shargh dailies held their editions as late as possible in order to report the news that no agreement had been reached.

“We were all holding our breath waiting around in the press room to the last minute,” an Etemaad staff reporter said.

On Monday, Kayhan, the Islamic republic’s leading right-wing daily, offered a self-congratulatory headline concerning the talks’ apparent failure: “Kayhan’s Prediction Came True.” Managing editor Hossein Shariatmadari has emerged as one of the most vociferous critics of the nuclear policies of president Hassan Rouhani’s new administration. In a lead editorial titled “Back to Square One, a Decade Later,” Shariatmadari sneered at the proposals made by the P5+1 – the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany. He called them “a repeat of the same damaging approach that was forced by the European troika of the UK, France and Germany in the October 2003 sessions in Tehran, and later in the sessions in Brussels during the 2003–5 negotiations. In the process, all the nuclear activities of our nation were suspended.”



Shariatmadari singled out what he called France’s “choreographed” role in the talks: “The French foreign minister [Laurent Fabius] rushes into Geneva following his scripted role as a ‘bad cop’ to join the negotiations. Regrettably, some of our simpleton friends took him for real. This is the same role that Israel used to play vis-à-vis Iran and 5+1 negotiations.”



By contrast, the conservative, pro-business Resalat daily put forward a generally optimistic view of the negotiations not only in its Sunday edition, which went to press before the talks’ conclusion, but on Monday as well, when it featured a quote from parliament deputy Avaz Heydarpour, a member of the national security and foreign policy commission: “In this round of negotiations, the Islamic republic of Iran made good headway based on Iran’s proposal package and attained much progress.”



As reported by Resalat, Heydarpour’s outlook was not entirely rosy. “The minute by minute coordination between Obama and Netanyahu,” he said, “made it appear as if the Americans didn’t have the will to decide on their own and would act only on what the Zionist regime dictates.” As for Fabius, “The French foreign minister became the spokesman for the Zionist regime and exposed his subservience to the Zionist lobby.” Nonetheless, in conclusion the parliamentarian predicted, “Iran’s proposals and their goals will become reality in the next session.”



France’s position was condemned not only by those on the Iranian right. In a commentary published by Etemad, the prominent historian and author Fereydoun Madjlessi wrote, “The astonishing reaction of France, before undermining the process of negotiations with Iran, will damage the internal unity of the 5+1 group. France’s prevention of an understanding can come only from a political basis . . . that nation’s interests in relation to Arab countries that don’t wish a mending of the relationship between Iran and the west. To maintain some kind of unity, Arab governments are trying to substitute enmity with Iran for enmity with Israel, because there is so much conflict among them that they need an external enemy. It is for this reason that, following Saudi Arabia’s leadership, they have chosen Iran as their external enemy.”



In Tehran’s busy Tajrish bazaar, 37-year-old Mahmoud, who took a day off from his job at the Iran Insurance Co. to try to find some deals on household appliances, agreed. “I really don’t get the French. If Mr. [Fabius] had experienced a day in the life of an Iranian salaried worker and the inflation [we deal with], he would not have taken such a stance. Everything has become three times more expensive. To buy a few kitchen appliances I had to take a day off. Then he rides in and prevents the agreement on which our daily lives depend. We have a saying, ‘That act is a Brit’s act.’ It seems that this time we have to say, ‘That act is the French’s act.’”



A foreign affairs expert who served as a diplomat during the reformist administration of Mohammad Khatami told Tehran Bureau via email, “I think France’s role has been overblown. Although Fabius’s performance has been followed by public anger in Iran, I can’t say that the French inflexibility prevented an agreement. That [hard line] was a common view in the 5+1.



“But my sense is that agreement is within reach, unless one of these days Ayatollah Khamenei changes his mind, which I consider unlikely.”



The hardline Raja News website reported that Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani welcomed the negotiations. It quoted the former president as saying, “Of course, the Israeli regime is internationally isolated today and its anger stems from its weakness in face of the resolve and desire of the Iranian government and people. If the 5+1 has integrity, it should not become greedy under the influence of fanatics.”



A political analyst in Tehran said, “I don’t understand why Raja News reflected Rafsanjani’s statement without any criticism or analysis. Either the editor has slipped up, or their views have changed.”



Perhaps lending some credence to the latter possibility, at the top of its home page Raja News also quoted the words of influential ultraconservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi regarding the negotiations’ three central figures, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, US secretary of state John Kerry, and EU high representative Catherine Ashton: “The five-hour negotiations between Zarif and Kerry and Lady Ashton is a good sign for the seriousness of the two sides.”



A related issue being widely discussed in the Iranian political sphere is Saudi Arabia’s evident displeasure with the prospect of an agreement between the Islamic republic and the west. In an interview that aired during Monday night’s state television news broadcast, Zarif tried to smooth things over. “We don’t know why some of the nations bordering the Persian Gulf have suddenly become worried and are frowning at their old friend,” he said.



The foreign minister continued, “I tell them not to be worried...as primary to Iran’s foreign policy is its neighbors. Iran, as the largest and most powerful country in the region, keeps the interests of its neighbors at the forefront and our belief is that any neighbor’s insecurity is our insecurity, and these negotiations have nothing to do with these nations’ concerns.”



Speaking on condition of anonymity, an international news reporter in Tehran said, “Zarif’s approach is a training course in classic diplomacy. The way I heard it, he confirmed that he intends to soon visit nations around the region.” Speaking of the minister’s responsiveness to the concerns of the Saudi monarchy, the reporter stated, “He knows well that he has to improve Tehran and Riyadh’s relationship, to diminish the worries of Al Saud and attain their trust toward the new government.”



As Mehdi, a 45-year-old florist on south Tehran’s Shariati Avenue, sees it, “Saudi Arabia is afraid Iran will become the number one power in the region. It is obvious. The Arabs have feared Iran for many centuries, and they’re frightened now. Because they are not intelligent. They are dependent, they are lazy. Their wish is for Iran to be under sanctions and for the US to buy their oil. That’s why they’re angry.”



Near the end of his interview, Zarif repeated, at least three times, that the support of both God and the Iranian people strengthens the negotiating team and would lead to its success. Some observers, however, remarked that he failed to mention any support lent by the Islamic republic’s supreme leader.



“I don’t know why he didn’t mention the leader," said a Green Movement activist. "The truth is that if Ayatollah Khamenei had not given strong support, the government would not have had any power to move the negotiations forward. Perhaps the reason is that Mr Khamenei doesn’t like for everyone to know that he is interested in the negotiations that are taking place, so that at the end he can say that the nuclear accord was the desire of the president and not his own. That is the realistic view. The optimistic view is that Zarif really believes more in the citizens’ energy than in the support of the regime and the leader.”

Tehran Bureau's Nuclear Watch series monitors the way the Iranian media reports the country's nuclear programme