Claims of deep divisions within Iran’s leadership have resurfaced amid ongoing tensions following the assassination of senior commanders, but experts and officials offer contrasting perspectives on the cohesion of the regime. Former US President Donald Trump has asserted that infighting between moderates and hardliners is so severe that Iran lacks clarity over its leadership, suggesting military hardliners are supplanting civilian diplomats. However, several analysts and Iranian academics challenge this view, pointing to the regime’s institutional resilience.
Trump’s recent statements, which mark a return to his earlier claims of turmoil within Iran’s ruling elite, come amid reports of factional demands complicating potential negotiations. Despite this, critics question the accuracy of his assessment. Mohamed Amersi, affiliated with the Wilson Center, describes Trump's narrative as an attempt at cognitive warfare designed to paralyze Iran’s decision-making apparatus. Similarly, Ali Ansari, a professor of Modern History at St Andrews University, acknowledges uncertainty about the authority of Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who reportedly sustained injuries, but cautions that the situation reflects a transitional phase rather than outright fragmentation.
Ali Alfoneh, senior fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute, suggests that the regime had already been evolving toward a more collective leadership model during the final years of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. According to Alfoneh, the elder Khamenei was increasingly reluctant to endorse unpopular policies outright, signaling a gradual diffusion of centralized authority. The appointment of Mohsen Rezaei, a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander known for his hardline stance and opposition to ceasefires, as military adviser to Mojtaba Khamenei may indicate a consolidation of hardline perspectives within the military sphere.
Conversely, Hassan Ahmadian, associate professor at the University of Tehran, rejects the notion of disunity within Iran’s ruling elite. He underscores the institutionalized nature of the Iranian political system, highlighting its capacity to withstand high-level assassinations and conduct retaliatory military operations. Ahmadian points to the existence of parallel institutions across Iran’s political and military landscape as a source of resilience. He argues that the regime has rallied around a wartime strategy leveraging control over the Strait of Hormuz, using it as leverage in sanctions negotiations and discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
Ahmadian characterizes Trump’s divisions narrative as psychological warfare and notes consensus among senior leaders in the 13-member Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), which integrates judicial, political, military, and intelligence figures, on the refusal to negotiate without the lifting of the US blockade on Iranian ports. The recent assassination of SNSC secretary Ali Larijani by Israeli agents, Ahmadian suggests, could prove counterproductive for those seeking to influence Iran’s negotiation stance, as Larijani was seen as a pragmatic and experienced figure capable of fostering consensus on Iran’s strategic approach.
As Tehran navigates both internal leadership dynamics and external pressures, the balance between factions remains a subject of debate, with differing interpretations reflecting broader geopolitical contestations over Iran’s future direction.