|
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi and his inner circle have repeatedly blocked attempts by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and other “pragmatist” officials to push the regime toward a more flexible negotiating position. Vahidi appears to have prevailed in this internal power struggle and will likely shape the regime’s approach toward negotiations and the war with a maximalist and uncompromising stance. Ghalibaf likely lacks the leverage to alter this trajectory in a meaningful way at this time. ISW-CTP has observed and reported on a sustained intra-regime rivalry between Vahidi and his inner circle and a “pragmatist” bloc that includes Ghalibaf, President Masoud Pezeshkian, and Foreign Affairs Minister Abbas Araghchi since late March. The rivalry has shown significant divergences between the two blocs over how to approach the war and negotiations. The divergences first surfaced around March 28 when Pezeshkian criticized the IRGC’s actions in the war. Pezeshkian subsequently accused Vahidi and Khatam ol Anbia Central Headquarters Commander IRGC Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi Ali Abadi of “acting unilaterally and fueling escalation.” The United States and Iran agreed to a ceasefire on April 7 after Araghchi reportedly persuaded the IRGC to accept it, which suggests that Vahidi disapproved of the ceasefire and, likely, negotiations. Vahidi and his inner circle then took steps to constrain the authority of Iran’s negotiating team, which included Ghalibaf and Araghchi, by attempting to insert Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr into the delegation and limit its mandate, particularly regarding Iran’s missile and nuclear programs. ISW-CTP previously assessed that Vahidi almost certainly attempted to insert Zolghadr into the delegation to ensure that someone from his inner circle could keep tabs on whether Araghchi or Ghalibaf tried to negotiate outside of Vahidi’s red lines. Zolghadr accused Ghalibaf and Araghchi of showing flexibility on certain issues during negotiations in Islamabad on April 11 and 12, after which IRGC leaders called the delegation back to Tehran. The talks collapsed without an agreement, and reports emphasized that the Iranian negotiating team lacked the authority to finalize an agreement. Vahidi continued to reject “pragmatist” efforts to ease tensions with the United States after the first round of negotiations. The IRGC harshly criticized Araghchi after he announced that the Strait of Hormuz was “completely open” on April 17, and the IRGC Navy subsequently attacked several commercial vessels and declared that no vessels of “any type or nationality” were permitted to transit through the strait, for example. Recent US-Iran talks that were expected to take place on April 21 or 22 before the ceasefire expired were canceled due to regime infighting and likely an effort by Vahidi and his camp to derail the talks. Vahidi has consolidated power throughout this rivalry while the “pragmatist” faction has lost influence over regime decision-making.
Vahidi appears to have prevailed over Ghalibaf at this time. Officials from various factions issued coordinated statements on April 23 and 24 that emphasized unity and reaffirmed revolutionary principles. Ghalibaf, Pezeshkian, Araghchi, and Judiciary Chief Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei started this messaging, followed by figures aligned with the hardline camp, including Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, Zolghadr, IRGC Quds Force Commander Brigadier General Esmail Ghaani, and ultra-hardline politician Saeed Jalili. The participation of “pragmatist” figures in this display of unity behind “revolutionary” principles indicates that they have, at least for now, accepted Vahidi’s dominance.
Recent reports that Ghalibaf may resign from being a member of the negotiating team are consistent with ISW-CTP’s assessment that Vahidi has emerged as the winner of the intra-regime rivalry. Sources told Western media that Ghalibaf has grown frustrated with internal divisions and has considered resigning from the negotiating delegation, while some outlets have claimed that Ghalibaf has already resigned from the negotiating team due to disagreements over nuclear concessions. The latter reports are consistent with reports that the Iranian negotiating delegation discussed the nuclear issue “contrary to instructions from Tehran” during the first round of negotiations. Ghalibaf’s resignation, if confirmed, would further signal his defeat and reduce the pragmatists’ influence over negotiations, as well as further consolidate Vahidi’s position within the regime.
|
