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 suggest he may have suffered several injuries, complicating his ability to speak and exercise authority.
In Iran's political system, authority is not just institutional - it is also performative. Khamenei's late father signalled intent through speeches and visible arbitration between factions, a function that is now largely missing. As a result, some argue Mojtaba Khamenei has simply not had the opportunity to establish authority on his own terms, while others question whether he is able to manage the system effectively.
Meanwhile, while diplomacy officially rests with the government under Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and President Masoud Pezeshkian, their authority is undermined by the presence of parliamentary speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf at the forefront of negotiations. His role seems operational rather than directive, painfully illustrated by his confused messaging regarding the closure status of the Strait of Hormuz.
As military control blossoms, led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a pattern emerges wherein military actions dictate diplomatic responses rather than the other way around. This suggests a widening gap in operational autonomy within the IRGC amidst the unclear leadership structure post-Khamenei.
Through these dynamics, one sees a system still operational but struggling to coherently direct its course in the face of acute pressures. The Islamic Republic remains intact, albeit exhibiting signs of tactical disarray, raising concerns over the coherence of its decisions and strategic direction. In this evolving landscape, the power plays among Mojtaba Khamenei, Ghalibaf, and the military are crucial for understanding Iran's future.
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 suggest he may have suffered several injuries, complicating his ability to speak and exercise authority.
In Iran's political system, authority is not just institutional - it is also performative. Khamenei's late father signalled intent through speeches and visible arbitration between factions, a function that is now largely missing. As a result, some argue Mojtaba Khamenei has simply not had the opportunity to establish authority on his own terms, while others question whether he is able to manage the system effectively.
Meanwhile, while diplomacy officially rests with the government under Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and President Masoud Pezeshkian, their authority is undermined by the presence of parliamentary speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf at the forefront of negotiations. His role seems operational rather than directive, painfully illustrated by his confused messaging regarding the closure status of the Strait of Hormuz.
As military control blossoms, led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a pattern emerges wherein military actions dictate diplomatic responses rather than the other way around. This suggests a widening gap in operational autonomy within the IRGC amidst the unclear leadership structure post-Khamenei.
Through these dynamics, one sees a system still operational but struggling to coherently direct its course in the face of acute pressures. The Islamic Republic remains intact, albeit exhibiting signs of tactical disarray, raising concerns over the coherence of its decisions and strategic direction. In this evolving landscape, the power plays among Mojtaba Khamenei, Ghalibaf, and the military are crucial for understanding Iran's future.
