Last week, the University of Tehran hosted a conference in which a panel of prominent professors and former officials expressed unprecedented public criticism of Iran’s nuclear program. The panelists drew parallels between the devastating costs of the Iran-Iraq war and those of Iran’s nuclear program and questioned its usefulness and achievements. The meeting made headlines even in the Western media for the panelists' audacity in questioning what the top leadership of the Islamic Republic considers a national security issue.

As expected, criticism of the panelists — Sadeg Zibakalam, Ahmad Shirzad and Davoud Hermidas-Bavand — was swift and harsh.

“One voice with Israel” was the top headline of hard-line Vatan Emrooz, which featured a picture of the panelists, suggesting that they are adopting Israel’s positions in their opposition to Iran’s nuclear program. The article’s subheader read, “Footprints of the hopes of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and [US President Barack] Obama in the recommendations of the administration’s supporters.”

Vatan Emrooz, which opposes a nuclear compromise, reported that since the administration has no progress to show from the interim agreements, those who have supported the negotiation efforts have resorted to “undermining the principle of Iran’s nuclear rights.” Zibakalam in particular has been supportive of Rouhani’s work to resolve the nuclear crisis and has been much more blunt than the president on the need to resolve regional issues.