With the US-Israeli war on Iran entering its sixth month, the US government appears to believe that continuous military pressure will cause internal fractures in Tehran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently claimed that members of the Iranian government had approached the Trump administration, implying a split between officials seeking a diplomatic solution and those taking a harder stance. However, the prolonged conflict has not led to public division; instead, it has forced different groups to align temporarily. When the hostilities decrease, a more visible contest is expected over how to rebuild the country.
Mojtaba Khamenei faces a significant challenge: he must reconcile the opposing visions for Iran’s future into a cohesive strategy after the war. The country’s political structure scatters decision-making across both elected and unelected bodies. Ultimate control over security and foreign policy lies with the supreme leader. Ali Khamenei previously had the power to decide on key security matters and to appoint top military leaders. Now, with his death, the process of converting diverse opinions into a single state policy has become weaker. The formal leadership remains intact, but the influence that once held the system together is missing.
Clashing Institutions
Mojtaba Khamenei has taken over from his father but lacks the same level of political authority, institutional connections, and public trust that Ali Khamenei built over decades. One faction consists of the security forces, including the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij militia. Mojtaba has long-standing relationships with IRGC members, providing him with a solid base of support. However, these connections do not automatically give him control over the entire military and security network.
President Masoud Pezeshkian is responsible for economic management, infrastructure rebuilding, and international diplomacy. His government bears the heavy task of keeping the country running and engaging in diplomatic talks while working within the security constraints set by the Supreme Leader and the Supreme National Security Council. Meanwhile, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf plays a unique role by operating in both civilian and military circles. His influence stems from his ability to mediate between groups with conflicting goals and transform military rules into actionable policies for the government.
Narratives in Conflict
For now, the war has not caused major public disputes because it has created a shared sense of purpose. Different groups in Iran have united around the idea that this is 'Trump’s war,' a result of a policy that walked away from the nuclear deal and increased pressure on the country. The damage to bridges, transport systems, and energy facilities supports this view, allowing the conflict to be described as a fight for national survival.
The military can frame its efforts as necessary for protecting the country, while the government can argue that diplomatic efforts and relief from sanctions are essential for rebuilding. This shared language makes it easier for groups to work together without eliminating the underlying competition. Yet, the unity does not eliminate frustration over the war's human and economic costs. It also does not resolve disagreements about how to conduct the war or approach negotiations.
Once the war ends or slows down, the rivalries in Tehran are likely to become more visible. The issue of rebuilding the country will almost certainly lead to a contest over who holds the most political power.