As US-Iran ceasfire deadline looms, think tank analysis flags deep divisions in Iranian leadership over peace deal
The Washington DC-based think tank said: “Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Galibaf appears to have engaged in a serious intra-regime dispute with Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander Major General Ahmed Vahidi and other senior regime officials who oppose negotiations with the US.”
The analysis highlighted a growing divide between Washington and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander Major General Ahmed Vahidi over the issue of Washington’s inclusion in the negotiations.
The think tank also noted: “According to Israeli media on April 19, Vahidi is reportedly the only Iranian official with direct access to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and serves as a conduit for the communication of important decisions to other regime officials.”
According to the post, Vahidi’s closeness to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei underscores his growing influence in Iran’s decision-making structure.
The think tank also noted: “Israeli media also reported on April 19 that the failure of Iranian officials to contact Mojtaba was a significant obstacle to the resumption of US-Iran negotiations.”
“Ghalibaf’s effort at diplomacy and apparent effort to reach an agreement may also be an attempt to preserve his position within the country and maintain his credibility,” the think tank said. Warning of possible political consequences, “Ghalibaf reportedly fears that both his and Araghchi’s positions will be at risk if the IRGC consolidates control.”
“The removal of Ghalibaf from his post as speaker of the parliament would represent a major defeat for Ghalibaf and his internal positions and a victory for Vahidi,” the analysis said, adding that any leadership change would carry significant consequences.
The think tank added that these developments are in line with its broader assessment of changing power dynamics in Tehran.
“These reports are consistent with CTP-ISW’s ongoing assessment that Vahidi and his inner circle have consolidated control over not only Iran’s military response to the conflict, but also Iran’s negotiating policy.”
On the diplomatic front, the analysis added: “The US and Iranian delegations will reportedly meet in Islamabad, Pakistan, for a second round of talks in the coming days. However, the US and Iran’s demands appear to have remained largely the same.”
The talks, expected to be held in Islamabad, took place at a time when friction continued due to the US naval blockade.
“The US Navy continues to enforce the blockade of Iranian ports, ordering 27 ships to change course since the beginning of the blockade. US forces may have forced two Iran-linked ships that attempted to violate the Navy blockade to turn back,” the think tank said.
Reference was also made to the recent maritime incident involving the seizure of the Iranian-flagged, US-sanctioned Touska. “My bad, Anbia Central Headquarters claimed that the US Navy’s seizure of the Iranian-flagged, US-sanctioned Touska on April 19 violated the US-Iran ceasefire,” the post read.
The think tank also highlighted legislative moves in Tehran aimed at establishing greater control over a key global shipping route.
“The Iranian Parliament is trying to formalize Iran’s ‘control’ over the Strait of Hormuz by drafting a law that would ban Israel-related ships from passing through the Strait of Hormuz,” the think tank said.
The report also stated that the proposed bill would also “require ships from ‘enemy countries’ to obtain approval from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council to pass through the strait, and would prohibit states that ‘harm’ Iran from passing through the strait until they pay compensation to Iran.”
With the current ceasefire scheduled to end on Wednesday, these Islamabad talks are seen as the last diplomatic outlet before the conflict potentially escalates into a full-scale infrastructure war.
While the United States maintains that a “fair and reasonable” deal has been offered, the Iranian leadership’s refusal to negotiate under the “shadow of the blockade” indicates that the deadlock in the previous round could be a harbinger of a much more dangerous conflict.
