The precise ideological lessons that Iran's new leadership draws from the 110-day war may prove to be the overriding factor in determining whether negotiations with the US culminate in an agreement that verifiably prevents the country from developing a nuclear weapon – an outcome that could usher in a new era for the Iranian economy while also reshaping the Middle East. This was reported by Qazaqyia.kz citing The Guardian.

Does this rapidly assembled leadership team, forged in the fire of war, still represent an Islamic ideological crusade – a description coined by Henry Kissinger – or does the acceptance of the memorandum of understanding, in the words of JD Vance, denote a desire for pragmatism?

The vacuum created by the invisibility of Iran's injured supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, makes this moment something of an interregnum. On Thursday, Khamenei published a letter saying he opposed the deal in principle but had deferred to the president, Masoud Pezeshkian, after being given undertakings that if the US demanded too much, he would not accept.

The rights of the country and the axis of resistance had to be protected, Khamenei said. Like his father and predecessor, Ali Khamenei, he has put himself in the enviable position of ensuring absolution from blame if the elected politicians get burnt dealing with the west.

His public intervention, on the eve of now-cancelled talks in Switzerland, may yet influence the balance of a charged debate inside the US administration as to the nature of Iran's new, younger leadership.

On Friday last week, Donald Trump seemed to land on one side when he accused the Iranian leadership of being "very dishonourable people who don't deal in good faith".

That assessment appeared to chime with the views of John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, who warned his president that a significant gap separated the positions publicly expressed by Iranian officials from what they were saying privately. "Intelligence indicates that Iranian intentions do not align with the commitments made in the agreement," Ratcliffe concluded, a source close to the discussions told Axios.

The hint was that Iran's leadership team would either stall on a nuclear agreement or, worse, conclude they must secretly assemble a weapon since the strait of Hormuz would eventually become a wasting asset.

Few Iranians deny that the strait was decisive in proving the US could no longer impose global order unilaterally.

Payam Fazlinejad, a hardline editor of the magazine Naqd Andisheh, said: "History has also shown America that geography sometimes takes revenge on technology; part of the source of power lies in geographical straits, not in heavy military equipment. Iran has come to understand that it possesses a greater deterrent power than a nuclear weapon."

But, like many others, Fazlinejad urged the leadership to break the never-ending cycle of war, negotiations and protests. "The country cannot afford a new miscalculation and must restore stability to the country," he told Pezeshkian at a meeting of media editors this week. Politicians may have different prescriptions but it is clear the public crave a return to normality.

Trump, judging by his remarks at the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains, has gone all in on a version of this analysis and, as a result, decided to embrace Iran's leadership. On Tuesday, he described the country's leaders – the third set with whom he has had to negotiate – as "the most rational group we have ever dealt with … They are not radicalised. They are looking to help their country."

Trump's team like to think they have been given in the last few weeks privileged access to the most senior figures in Tehran in a way that is unprecedented for US politicians since the 1979 revolution.

Vance, for instance, said the US had never got so close to the Iranian leadership. "The coolest thing about the progress we've made over the last few weeks is that you're seeing people within the Iranian system – senior leadership, even IRGC officials – say: 'You know what? We recognise the way that we've done business with the US for 47 years is a mistake.'"

He said it was the hardliners in Tehran who were playing up the benefits of the deal for Iran and playing down its drawbacks – an assessment that in fact is probably the opposite of what has been happening in the capital over the past two weeks.

In reality, it has been the most hardline faction, known as the Paydari Front and long opposed to engagement with the west, that has denigrated the deal. This group, linked to the former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and prominent in the parliament, described the deal as a catastrophe and said ending the blockade now was premature. Many of its members appeared at street rallies and on TV to denounce the negotiating team.