Mohammad Khatami’s Political Warning: A Critique of Government and Media After the War
Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami has once again drawn national attention with his sharp political remarks regarding Iran in the aftermath of the 12 Day War.
Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami has once again drawn national attention with his sharp political remarks regarding Iran in the aftermath of the 12 Day War. On October 24, speaking to a group of political activists in Yazd, Khatami focused on the performance of the government and the state broadcaster, warning that the gap between the people and the ruling establishment has never been wider. His remarks, widely reported in Tehran’s reformist newspapers such as Ham-Mihan, Arman-e Melli, and Shargh, carried a tone of frustration mixed with patriotic concern, highlighting the dangers of political isolation, propaganda, and the mistake of perceiving national unity as support for the government.
In his address, Khatami praised the solidarity of Iranians during the recent conflict but warned against misinterpreting that unity as political approval for the ruling authorities. He said the Iranian people rallied not around a government or a faction, but around the idea of Iran itself. “Let us not be mistaken and say the people endorsed us,” he said. “They endorsed Iran, and it is we who must move toward Iran.” This distinction, subtle but powerful, challenged the government’s narrative that national cohesion during wartime reflected renewed public support for the Islamic Republic. For Khatami, the people’s behavior was an expression of national identity, not political allegiance.
His most direct criticism was aimed at the state broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), which he accused of failing to sustain the inclusive and unifying tone it briefly adopted during the war. IRIB headquarters was the target of an Israeli bombing on June 16, which occurred mid-broadcast, killing two and wounding others.
“Even the songs sung for Iran were good,” Khatami remarked, “but soon after the war, state television reverted to its previous course.” The comment, simple yet cutting, encapsulated his long-standing frustration with IRIB’s partisan behavior — its tendency to act as an instrument of propaganda for hardline factions rather than as a national media serving all citizens. Khatami’s critique implied that the network’s return to divisive programming reflected a deeper institutional problem: an unwillingness to recognize the diversity of Iranian society and the need for shared narratives that transcend ideology.
Khatami’s critique of IRIB reflects a broader public frustration with the suppression of dissent and the manipulation of information. For many Iranians, state television symbolizes centralized control — a daily reminder of the distance between rulers and society. By publicly calling out IRIB, Khatami challenged one of the most sensitive foundations of the system: the idea that information should serve power rather than the people.
By linking the performance of the media to broader political dysfunction, Khatami painted a picture of a state disconnected from its people. His argument was that a government which cannot tolerate different viewpoints or give space to public questioning risks losing its legitimacy. He contrasted the spirit of unity seen during the war with the fragmentation that dominates everyday governance. While missiles and military strength had contributed to the country’s defense, he said, the real power of Iran lay in its people.
“Missiles without people are only tools,” he warned, “and people without trust in their government are vulnerable.” In this sense, his message was as much about domestic legitimacy as it was about national security: power that does not rest on popular confidence cannot endure.
Khatami’s political message extended beyond the media and post-war environment. His broader critique targeted the government’s failure to manage the country effectively and to meet its own long-term goals. He lamented that Iran had fallen behind on every major indicator of development and accused the leadership of sacrificing growth, transparency, and civic participation in the name of security. For Khatami, the same mentality that dominates the state broadcaster — the insistence on control and the exclusion of dissent — also pervades governance as a whole. It has, he implied, produced a system unable to respond to public needs, incapable of reform, and increasingly detached from the aspirations of its citizens.
The timing of Khatami’s remarks added symbolic weight. His comments came just as the government sought to portray the postwar atmosphere as a moment of national victory. Instead, Khatami shifted the narrative from triumphalism to reflection, reminding Iran’s elites and the public that military success cannot compensate for political and social stagnation. He stressed that true legitimacy does not come from televised displays of patriotism but from public trust and inclusion. His statement that “we must move toward Iran” served as a call to reorient the nation’s political compass — away from ideological supremacy and toward national interest, pluralism, and civic responsibility.
In Tehran’s reformist press, his remarks were described as a warning — an implicit challenge to the state’s monopoly over information and its habit of claiming national unity as proof of popular consent. Ham-Mihan called his speech “Khatami’s explicit warning,” arguing that the deeper crisis in Iran is intellectual rather than structural: a rift between those who view religion and governance as open to reason and those who use them as tools of authority. Arman-e Melli wrote that the war had revealed the irreplaceable role of the people, forcing the political elite to acknowledge that society cannot be ignored or excluded. Shargh interpreted his Yazd speech as a coded message to both government and public — that the survival of the nation depends on balancing the state’s power with the people’s participation.
He warned that unless the government listens to its citizens and the media becomes a platform for all voices, the fragile unity witnessed during wartime will dissolve into deeper disillusionment. His words carried both urgency and restraint — a message of reform delivered through the language of patriotism. After the war, as the government seeks validation and the media claims victory, Khatami reminded everyone that genuine victory belongs only to a nation that allows its people to speak freely and think critically.