Iran's leaders show unity on war, but clash over ultimate goal

Iranian leaders are presenting a united front on their war strategy, emphasizing resilience against the United States and its allies. However, beneath this surface of solidarity lies a significant divergence regarding the ultimate objective of the conflict. This internal division is becoming increasingly apparent as attacks against U.S. and allied bases escalate.

On one side are the hardliners, often associated with the "Paydari" movement, who advocate for complete victory and reject any negotiations with the U.S. They are described as ideologues committed to enforcing the Islamic Republic's control over society. On the other side are factions supporting President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf. This group views military pressure as a means to achieve a negotiated agreement with the U.S., partly driven by concerns over the war's economic toll and the need to adapt to social changes within Iran.

An advisor to Qalibaf, Mahdi Mohammadi, articulated this perspective on Telegram, stating, "Negotiation is a political tool and a complement to military action to bring the enemy to a point of coercion and extract real concessions." This unusually open rivalry within the theocracy's leadership suggests a contest for control over Iran's post-war trajectory. A key unknown is the stance of the new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, who reportedly was injured in the attack that killed his father early in the war and has not been seen publicly since.

Despite internal disagreements, a ceasefire agreement reached in April received broad support from Iran's Supreme National Security Council, with only Saeed Jalili, a prominent Paydari figure, reportedly voting against it. However, the ceasefire collapsed amid ongoing exchanges of fire and Iran's efforts to control the Strait of Hormuz. Iran also expressed frustration over the non-fulfillment of financial aspects of the deal, including the release of frozen assets, leading to the reimposition of U.S. sanctions. Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group noted that without tangible benefits from the deal, there is "no serious division" on how to respond.