Disposition of global public toward cease-fire, Iran-US talks
By Sina Mojaver, Arsalan
Veisi, and Ali Roohandeh
Staff at Namafar data collection company
The recent conflict between Iran and the United States has engendered extensive ramifications across political, economic, and security domains, regionally and globally. This belligerence, not only has exacerbated international tensions, but has also exerted a profound influence upon the public sphere in various nations.
A meticulous analysis of the populace’s disposition toward the cease-fire and the negotiations possesses particular salience, inasmuch as these perspectives could sculpt the trajectory of diplomacy and future policies. Furthermore, the discernment of divergent reactions among cultural and political groups to this crisis facilitates a superior comprehension of the opportunities and challenges impending. Under such critical circumstances, the examination of the media’s role in directing these dispositions becomes indispensable, so that one might formulate efficacious strategies for crisis management.
The tensions between Iran and the United States, alongside their extensive repercussions upon political, economic, and security domains regionally and globally, necessitate a profound comprehension of the public sphere’s disposition toward the cease-fire and the negotiations. These dispositions perform a significant function in the diplomatic process, the preservation of market stability, and the configuration of future policies. Moreover, the divergence in viewpoints among disparate cultural and political groups, internal and external to the nation, accentuates the necessity for a meticulous and comprehensive investigation.
This report constitutes a synthesis of three parallel research endeavors, executed with the objective of analyzing the reactions of Anglophone, Persophone, and Arabophone global users on X (formerly, Twitter) to the announcement of the cease-fire and the negotiations. It furthermore undertakes the identification of proponent and opponent groups, their underlying rationales, and an evaluation of the public sphere’s convictions concerning victory or defeat in the conflict. Likewise, the role of media and political approaches in the formation of these perspectives has been scrutinized. The provision of a holistic depiction of regional and global reactions, empowers policymakers and analysts to achieve superior crisis management and to direct the negotiation process toward success.
Disposition of Anglophone users
71% of the Anglophones have endorsed the cease-fire. The proponents of the cease-fire consist of three categories and groups: 1) economic activists, who welcomed the decline in oil prices and the restoration of stability to markets; 2) supporters of Trump, who regard the agreement as a momentous achievement and the consequence of “maximum pressure” upon Iran; and 3) anti-Israeli users, who express gratification concerning the United States’ withdrawal from direct engagement in the Middle East.
Conversely, 29% of users oppose the cease-fire, belonging predominantly to two currents: Democrats, who believe that Trump’s imprudent policies have positioned Iran in a superior negotiating posture, and supporters of Israel, who evaluate this agreement as merely an opportunity for Tehran to procure time and to engage in diplomatic subterfuge.
31% of the Anglophones consider Iran the victor of the war, a cohort comprising pro-Iranian Muslims, Democrats, and Israeli extremists. 30% believe this war had no victor and that all parties have sustained damage. 21% affirm American victory in the war, yet 18% deem Israel the war’s victor, holding the conviction that Israel, through exploitation of the United States and Donald Trump, has achieved its objectives.
Furthermore, 63% of Anglophone users on X harbor pessimism regarding the future of the negotiations; the root of this pessimism traces back to Israel’s deleterious role in the negotiations and the existent conception concerning Iran’s bellicose nature. On the opposing side, 31% of them are optimistic about the negotiations’ future; this group includes Democrats who believe Iran possesses the superior position and that Trump will be compelled to accept Tehran’s terms, supporters of Trump who have faith in the preponderance of American power, and Pakistani English-writing users.
Reaction of Persophone users
Considering the fact that accessing X inside Iran has been very limited, at best, during the US-Israeli aggression against the country, the reaction of Persophone X users to the cease-fire and the Iran–United States negotiations presents a dichotomous yet pluralistic picture. 42% of users have endorsed the cease-fire in principle, considering it a means to halt the war, to diminish the threat against infrastructure, and to prevent further harm to citizens; although, this endorsement did not, in every instance, signify complete trust in the negotiation process or satisfaction with the state of governance.
In contrast, 39% of users have opposed the cease-fire, but their opposition emanates from two divergent origins: a portion of the opponents of the Islamic Republic have regarded the cease-fire as an opportunity for the regime’s survival and the deferral of its collapse, whereas another portion of forces aligned with the system have considered it a trap for enemy deception and augmented pressure. Additionally, 19% of the content possessed a neutral and newsworthy nature, merely reflecting momentary events.
In the evaluation of the war’s victor, the Persophone users’ interpretation, more than being grounded in on-the-ground realities, is subordinate to rival media and political narratives. On one side, opponents of the regime, emphasizing the weakening of the command structure, defensive vulnerability, and Iran’s being drawn to the negotiating table, have introduced the Islamic Republic as the war’s loser; and on the other side, official media and users aligned with the Islamic Republic have considered America’s acceptance of negotiation and the articulation of Iran’s demands as evidence of Tehran’s supremacy and Washington’s retreat.
Nevertheless, what predominates above all is the rise of pessimism regarding the future of the negotiations: 81% of Persian-speaking users are pessimistic about the fate of the negotiations, and the premature failure of the Islamabad dialogues has exacerbated this pessimism. Only 19% of users have remained hopeful about the continuation of the diplomatic path and the possibility of an agreement in subsequent rounds.
Disposition of the Arab world’s public sphere
A relative majority of users (53%) have declared their assent to the cease-fire. This group itself subdivides into three categories: a portion consider Iran the victor of the battlefield, emphasizing the terms imposed by Tehran, including sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and the collection of transit tolls; another portion proclaim the United States the victor, pointing to Iran’s retreat from its conditions and the weakening of the Islamic Republic as a consequence of the war; and the third category have merely welcomed the reduction of tensions and the return of relative calm to the region.
In contrast, 47% of users oppose the cease-fire. This group predominantly focuses upon the immediate and extensive violation of the agreement within the very first hours: Iran’s attacks upon Kuwait and the Emirates, on one hand, and Israel’s attacks upon Lebanon, on the other. In the view of these users, the cease-fire is not a genuine agreement but merely an opportunity for the military reconfiguration of the belligerent parties.
A significant point in the prediction of the cease-fire’s future is the predominance of pessimism (59%); a matter indicating that even a portion of the proponents have little hope for the agreement’s endurance.
Furthermore, the margin of 55 to 45 in the interpretation of victory also constructs an intriguing image: both parties can implant their narrative of success within the public sphere, and this very circumstance likely served as an important factor in the acceptance of the cease-fire by both capitals. Nevertheless, what emerges from the data is the image of an agreement that, more than being an end to a crisis, represents its metamorphosis.
All in all, the present research demonstrated that the disposition of the public sphere across different languages and cultures toward the cease-fire and the Iran–United States negotiations possesses substantial diversity and complexity. These data indicate that the cease-fire has resulted more in the metamorphosis of the crisis than in its termination, and the role of media and political approaches in the formation of dispositions is highly determinative. This analysis could assist policymakers in achieving superior crisis and negotiation management.
The article was first published in Persian by Namafar.