With recent escalations in attacks on bases belonging to the United States and its allies, Iran’s leadership exhibits significant unity regarding its wartime strategy: demonstrating resilience and determination against US forces and their allies. However, there are notable differences within the leadership about the ultimate goal.
A faction known as the ‘Paydari’ —meaning ‘stability’ in Persian— opposes any negotiations with the United States, advocating for complete victory in the conflict. These hardline ideologues aim to reinforce the control of the Islamic Republic over the society.
On the other hand, supporters of President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament President Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, who is Iran’s chief negotiator, view military pressure as a means to reach a negotiated settlement with the United States. They are also driven by concerns over the war’s economic toll and the need to adapt to societal changes within the country.
A political advisor to Qalibaf, Mahdi Mohammadi, stated on social media that, ‘Negotiation is a political tool and complement to military action to push the enemy to a point of coercion and extract real concessions.’
The conspicuous rivalry within the theocratic leadership points to a struggle for control over Iran’s future post-war. A significant uncertainty lies in the stance of the new Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, reportedly injured in the attack that killed his father at the onset of the conflict on February 28. Since then, he has not been seen. Both factions claim to have his backing.
Supporting Qalibaf and Pezeshkian, the ceasefire agreement with the United States in April received substantial approval from Iran’s top authority, the Supreme National Security Council. It was endorsed by 12 of its 13 members, including top officials from the Revolutionary Guard and Armed Forces.
It is widely believed that the sole vote against the agreement came from Saeed Jalili, the most prominent figure of the Paydari movement. However, the ceasefire quickly unraveled amid ongoing exchanges of attacks, with Iran striving to control passage through the Strait of Hormuz, crucial in global oil and gas transportation before the war.
Iran was further agitated by the absence of financial benefits promised in the agreement, including the release of billions in frozen assets. The US blockade is once again in place. Ali Vaez, director of the project on Iran at the International Crisis Group, stated that there is no serious division in the leadership regarding the response, believing that President Donald Trump only responds to forceful language, necessitating an advantage to compel compliance.
The Paydari hardliners have leveraged numerous strategies, including public rallies and control over state television, known as IRIB, to amplify opposition to negotiations. They have portrayed Iran as marching towards complete victory while vilifying those who concede to the United States.
Broadcasts on state television were interrupted at critical moments to curb messages from negotiators. In one instance, a live transmission with Qalibaf was cut off while he was discussing negotiations with Washington, and similarly, a speech by Pezeshkian was halted just as he disclosed the late Ayatollah’s approval for resumed talks.
Pezeshkian and his allies responded by portraying IRIB as a divisive factor during wartime. The President accused the broadcaster of creating an appearance of military-government divisions. Last month, the President’s press office condemned state television for allegedly censoring him and other government leaders, indicating a significant split.
Hardliners further exerted their influence by briefly closing popular cafes in Tehran’s center that were frequented by residents during the ceasefire. Videos showed many women in these cafes defying mandatory headscarf laws, mixing freely. Although short-lived, the closures signaled extremist religious factions showing their strength, according to Mohamad Ali Abtahi, a reformist cleric and adviser to former President Mohammad Khatami.
Despite being a minority, Jalili’s supporters hold substantial influence, claimed Vali Nasr, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. They possess substantial financial resources, wield significant power, place many in the bureaucracy, and foster Revolutionary Guard connections.
Pragmatic leaders argue that maintaining unity amid war demands addressing public dissatisfaction stemming from economic struggles and political and social repression. As Iran’s currency consistently plummets, inflation surges, and unemployment rises, a final agreement with the United States could offer significant benefits, including lifting sanctions and returning billions in assets.
The public’s impatience with the conflict has begun to surface. Over 250 former legislators, clerics, professors, and public figures signed a petition against the war, highlighting the conflict’s costs and advocating for peace and the right to a dignified life.
A key reformist party involved in Pezeshkian’s presidential campaign warned that the war’s internal burden was undermining social cohesion, prompting Tasnim, a news agency aligned with the Revolutionary Guard, to reprimand the statement, accusing it of blaming Iran for a war initiated by the United States.
In July, Youssef Pezeshkian, the President’s influential advisor, published messages advocating for balancing realistic military objectives with a weak economy. Reflecting on years of sanctions and Western confrontation, he stated that Iran has been hindered from growth and suffered significantly, illustrating the depth of challenges faced.
Looking ahead, both factions compete for power beyond the war, given the unusual uncertainty stemming from the Supreme Leadership transition. Abtahi noted that the true sentiments of Mojtaba Khamenei remain unknown. While some perceive him as potentially more radical, others foresee the possibility of moderated change.
As the supreme leader, his concentrated power may act as a brake on more extremist factions. However, confronting these factions could become increasingly hazardous if such restraints are not effectively applied.