The question hanging over Tehran since the opening strikes of Iran's current war with the US and Israel is simple: Who is in charge? Formally, the answer is clear. Mojtaba Khamenei has assumed the role of supreme leader following the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, on the first day of the war on 28 February. In the Islamic Republic's system, that position is meant to be decisive. The leader has the final word on almost anything important: war, peace, and the state's strategic direction. But in practice, the picture is far murkier. Donald Trump has described Iran's leadership as fractured and suggested the US is waiting for Tehran to produce a unified proposal. Unity was certainly on the minds of Iran's leaders when they distributed a message to Iranians on their mobile phones on Thursday night saying there was no such thing as a hardliner or moderate in Iran - there was just one nation, one course.
Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen in public since taking power. Beyond a handful of written statements, including one insisting the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, there is little direct evidence of his day-to-day control. Iranian officials have acknowledged that he was injured in the initial strikes but have offered few details. Reports from the New York Times suggest he may have sustained injuries that hinder his ability to speak. This absence is particularly impactful as authority in Iran's political system relies heavily on visible leadership and public signaling. The late Khamenei filled this role through speeches and public appearances that demonstrated his control and authority.
Currently, decision-making appears less centralized than before the war. Diplomacy ostensibly rests with the government, where Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi engages in discussions with the US under President Masoud Pezeshkian, but doubts linger regarding their genuine authority over strategic direction, particularly as Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf takes a leading role in these negotiations. This operational shift raises questions about the centralization of power within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which appears to drive military strategy amid the chaos and political uncertainty. Ghalibaf stands out as a pragmatic voice, but his lack of clear authorization underscores confusion in Iran's leadership dynamics. As the IRGC tightens its grip on power, the Iranian political landscape reveals a delicate balance of competing influences, underscoring both the resilience and instability of the regime.
Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen in public since taking power. Beyond a handful of written statements, including one insisting the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, there is little direct evidence of his day-to-day control. Iranian officials have acknowledged that he was injured in the initial strikes but have offered few details. Reports from the New York Times suggest he may have sustained injuries that hinder his ability to speak. This absence is particularly impactful as authority in Iran's political system relies heavily on visible leadership and public signaling. The late Khamenei filled this role through speeches and public appearances that demonstrated his control and authority.
Currently, decision-making appears less centralized than before the war. Diplomacy ostensibly rests with the government, where Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi engages in discussions with the US under President Masoud Pezeshkian, but doubts linger regarding their genuine authority over strategic direction, particularly as Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf takes a leading role in these negotiations. This operational shift raises questions about the centralization of power within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which appears to drive military strategy amid the chaos and political uncertainty. Ghalibaf stands out as a pragmatic voice, but his lack of clear authorization underscores confusion in Iran's leadership dynamics. As the IRGC tightens its grip on power, the Iranian political landscape reveals a delicate balance of competing influences, underscoring both the resilience and instability of the regime.
