Report: Iran’s Civilian Leaders and IRGC Locked in Bitter Power Struggle Over War With West
A growing internal power struggle between Iran’s civilian leadership and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is threatening to shape the future of the conflict with the West, with senior political figures reportedly pushing to preserve diplomacy while military hardliners seek continued escalation, according to regional sources.
The New York Post reported that, with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei remaining out of public view, no central authority appears capable of bringing the country’s competing factions into line. As a result, the report says, Tehran’s internal battle for power may now be as important as decisions being made in Washington.
According to the sources, two competing centers of authority have emerged within the Iranian regime. Civilian officials are attempting to keep negotiations with the United States alive, while the IRGC is pressing for a more confrontational military approach.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf are said to favor continued diplomacy with Washington in hopes of preventing the conflict from expanding into another full-scale regional war.
Despite those efforts, their influence has steadily diminished, according to a regional source familiar with Iran’s internal politics.
“They can sign [agreements], but they can’t stop the IRGC from acting or parliament from legislating around them,” the source told The Post.
Rather than prevailing through political debate, the IRGC has increasingly dictated events through military operations, with Iran’s parliament later moving to formalize those actions through legislation.
“The hardliners don’t need to win internal arguments,” the source said. “They create facts on the ground … and get parliament to legalize them after the fact.”
“The shift is real — now it’s becoming law, which is much harder to reverse.”
Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the distinction between Iran’s civilian diplomats and the country’s military leadership is critical to understanding Tehran’s decision-making.
“Yes, there are politicians who occasionally come out, including even Iran’s foreign minister, who talk about dialogue,” Taleblu told The Post. “But those driving the train, those with their finger on the trigger, those making some of the most important decisions continue to talk and act like escalation is what will secure their survival, not engagement.”
Taleblu acknowledged that Iran has historically pursued diplomacy and military pressure simultaneously but said recent developments indicate that the regime is placing greater emphasis on confrontation.
“There is obviously a divide in Iran,” he said. “But we have to make sure that when we look at the divide, we pay attention to who matters and what matters — and who and what matter seem to be doubling down on escalation.”
The report says the growing divide has become increasingly visible in recent weeks.
According to one regional source, the IRGC’s expanding influence was evident during the funeral ceremonies for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, where IRGC officers occupied the front rows rather than civilian leaders.
The same source also claimed that several televised addresses by Iran’s political leadership were edited before broadcast instead of airing live, raising additional questions about who now controls the country’s public messaging.
According to the report, the IRGC’s influence extends throughout nearly every major institution in Iran, including parliament, where lawmakers have taken steps that undermine diplomatic efforts.
The report said approximately 180 members of Iran’s 290-seat parliament voted to declare the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding effectively void, while simultaneously advancing legislation introduced by lawmaker Ebrahim Azizi titled the “Strategic Action for the Security and Sustainable Progress of the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf.”
Taleblu argued that Iran’s leadership appears convinced that continued military confrontation remains in its strategic interest despite suffering significant battlefield setbacks.
“They believe there are real barriers to escalation by Trump, and that there are real gains to be had by escalation,” he said. “They’re the ones who transgressed on the MOU. They’re the ones who believe every time America responds, they have the right to respond.”
The report noted that the divide became particularly apparent on Tuesday, when senior Iranian civilian officials traveled to Pakistan in an effort to preserve diplomatic channels.
“They want mediation,” a regional source told The Post, adding that the civilian leadership may eventually regain influence because the “IRGC knows that it won’t get weapons from any other market anymore.”
Ordinarily, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei would be expected to resolve such internal disputes. However, according to the report, he has not appeared publicly since the Feb. 28 bombing that killed his father and elevated him to Iran’s highest office. Since then, he has communicated only through written statements and has not delivered public speeches, appeared on television, or attended family funeral ceremonies.
“I think if he ever does come out of hiding — or if it’s proven that he does really exist — he would be able to rally some of the Islamic Republic’s factions just by virtue of having survived against all odds,” Taleblu said.
“That being said, the fact that he didn’t come out for his father’s funeral, the fact that he hasn’t been seen in so long as the country’s new supreme leader, tells you a lot more about who is pulling the strings,” he added.
According to the report, Khamenei’s prolonged absence has only deepened uncertainty over who truly controls Iran’s strategic decisions while allowing rival factions greater freedom to pursue competing agendas.
“There is no one left to force the two sides into alignment,” one regional source said.
Taleblu concluded by cautioning Washington against interpreting conciliatory statements from Iran’s civilian leaders as evidence of a genuine strategic shift by the regime.
“It’s not a question of whether we’re speaking to the wrong people,” he said. “It’s a question of what speaking gets you.”
{Matzav.com}
