Trump may talk of regime infighting, but Iran seems united by strategy born of war | Iran
Donald Trump claimed that the conflict between moderates and hardliners in Iran’s leadership is so intense that Iranians “have no idea who their leader is”; but many experts have questioned his analysis, saying the country has shown remarkable institutional alignment given the mass assassinations of senior commanders.
Trump’s “CRAZY” claims of division in Iran’s leadership – the second time he has made this claim in three days – are notable because he has previously said he either knew little about the new Iranian leadership or that a regime change had already occurred.
Trump’s team may be understanding, whether through Pakistani mediators or more direct contacts, that different groups are demanding different preconditions for the resumption of negotiations. Trump is at least implying that military hardliners are taking responsibility from civilian diplomatic leadership.
It’s no secret that Iran has been divided for decades over how to approach the United States and the wisdom of negotiations, but some Iranian scholars and observers accuse Trump of cognitive warfare: trying to create what Mohamed Amersi, a member of the Wilson Center’s Global Advisory Council, describes as “chronic systemic paralysis in which the country’s decision-making machine is bogged down.”
Ali Ansari, professor of modern history at St Andrews, said Iran, although not experiencing a leadership vacuum, was at least a country in transition, as the newly appointed and apparently seriously injured religious leader Mojtaba Khamenei had not yet been able to establish his authority, a process that took his father and predecessor Ali Khamenei many years.
“We’re not quite sure if he’s fully there, and even if he is there, whether he’ll be able to solidify his position and his authority the way his father did,” Ansari said.
Ali Alfoneh, a senior researcher at the Arab Gulf States Institute, said Iran moved towards a more collective leadership in the last two years of Ali Khamenei’s life. “She was getting older and didn’t want to take responsibility for unpopular measures or measures that she couldn’t justify religiously, such as not making hijab compulsory,” Alfoneh said.
Mojtaba Khamenei has said little in detail about the negotiations or the ceasefire; But an indication of his mentality may be his appointment as military advisor to Mohsen Rezai, one of the most unreconstructed of the former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and an opponent of the ceasefire.
Hasan Ahmadian, an associate professor of West Asian studies at Tehran University, denies there are any rifts in Iran’s leadership.
“Iran’s political system is highly institutionalized. Name another system whose top brass has been assassinated and has been able to maintain and continue retaliatory war efforts against two major enemies. I don’t see a historical parallel to that,” Ahmadian said.
He added: “Every institution in Iran has a parallel institution, which makes it easier to withstand shocks.”
He said Iran is uniting around a new strategy emerging from the war, focused on using the influence provided by the Strait of Hormuz to combat pressure from Trump. “The Strait is the key… If there is a fair agreement, we will receive sanctions relief and compensation, and in return, Iran will activate the IAEA.” [the UN nuclear inspectorate] and dilute highly enriched uranium.
“We also say that if you violate your commitments, our mentality changes. [when Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal] Iran didn’t have much to offer. That’s what we’re doing right now, so we’re speaking Trump’s language. It is very effective. “Just as you target our people, we will target your people’s pockets,” he said.
Ahmadian said Trump’s claims of divided command were a form of psychological warfare and argued that senior leaders broadly agreed to refuse to negotiate until the United States lifted the blockade of Iranian ports.
He said that this policy derives its strength from the fact that it was created by the 13-person Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), which is the governing body that brings together all the forces in Iran, such as the judiciary, political, military and intelligence, much more than the political cabinet.
Israel’s assassination of SNSC secretary Ali Larijani could be counterproductive as it eliminates the most talented, pragmatic and experienced figures in Iranian politics who could formulate a compromise negotiation strategy. His replacement, secretary Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, does not have the same experience and is a senior IRGC commander.
The person who plays Larijani’s unifying role is the speaker of the parliament, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf. Sometimes described as a “modernizing autocrat”, he was appointed head of Iran’s delegation to Islamabad and supervised foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, a skilled diplomat who would work within predetermined parameters.
In a recent widely praised TV interview, Ghalibaf laid out in detail how successful Iran has been, but also made clear that the country cannot continue in the same way. He argued that Iran may have won the war, but not the war, citing the need for negotiations.
He cautioned against exaggerating Iran’s leverage, stressing that US military superiority and capabilities should not be underestimated. Iran had to negotiate, an attitude that was not shared.
In all this, elected Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian was sidelined. The reformist leader was instead assigned to keep the home front running and was kept away from the details of the negotiations.
Prof Ansari argued that some of the tensions over how to conduct negotiations reflected the IRGC’s concern to protect its core interests, including its vast business empire. He said: “The real danger for the Islamic republic is peace, not war, because then there will be control of what is happening – especially if the economic situation is extremely difficult, as expected.”
