Ask Onix
Who leads Iran in wartime?
Three months into Iran's conflict with the US and Israel, a critical question persists: who is steering the nation's decisions? While Mojtaba Khamenei officially holds power as supreme leader, his absence from public view has left a void in Tehran's command structure.
The supreme leader's silence
Mojtaba Khamenei ascended to leadership after his father, Ali Khamenei, was killed in a strike on February 28. In theory, the role grants ultimate authority over war, diplomacy, and state strategy. Yet his public appearances have been nonexistent since taking office. Beyond a few written statements-including one asserting the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed-evidence of his active control is scarce.
The New York Times reported this week that Khamenei sustained injuries in the initial strikes, including facial trauma that may hinder his ability to speak. Iranian officials have confirmed his injuries but provided no further details. His absence is significant: Iran's political system relies on performative authority, where leaders signal intent through speeches and public mediation. Without these cues, factions are left to interpret-or contest-his directives.
Diplomacy without direction
On paper, President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi handle negotiations. In practice, their influence appears limited. Araghchi's recent reversal on the Strait of Hormuz-first suggesting it was open, then retracting-highlighted the disconnect between diplomatic statements and military actions. Pezeshkian, a moderate, has aligned with the regime's broader stance but avoided shaping it independently.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander, now leads Iran's delegation in talks with the US. His involvement underscores the blurred lines of authority. While Ghalibaf frames the war in pragmatic terms, his role lacks clear authorization from Khamenei, leaving his legitimacy in question.
The Revolutionary Guard's expanding role
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), led by Ahmad Vahidi, holds decisive control over Iran's most critical leverage: the Strait of Hormuz. Military actions, from enforcing the blockade to strikes across the Gulf, now set the crisis's tempo. Political and diplomatic responses often follow, rather than guide, these moves.
This shift suggests the IRGC's operational autonomy has grown in the absence of central arbitration. Unlike past crises, no single figure appears to own the strategy. Instead, a pattern has emerged: actions precede messaging, and consistency is rare.
Hardliners resist compromise
Ghalibaf's pragmatic rhetoric clashes with hardline factions in parliament and state media, which increasingly frame negotiations as weakness. His attempts to position himself as a mediator-while insisting he acts on Khamenei's behalf-lack visible coordination with the supreme leader.
The stalled US-Iran talks in Islamabad further illustrate the impasse. Even with diplomatic channels open, Tehran's system seems unable or unwilling to commit to a unified stance.
A system holding, but barely
The Islamic Republic remains intact, but its coherence is fraying. The supreme leader's authority exists in name only; the presidency aligns without leading; diplomacy operates without decisiveness. The IRGC wields power but lacks a public architect. Political figures step forward, but their legitimacy is contested.
"There is no such thing as a hardliner or moderate in Iran-there is just one nation, one course," read a government text message to Iranians on Thursday night.
The message underscored the regime's attempt to project unity. Yet the reality is more fragmented. Iran retains leverage-like its control over the Strait-but struggles to convert it into clear strategy under pressure. The system can still act, but its signals are muddled.
For now, Tehran maintains control, avoiding visible collapse. But the question lingers: is coherence being exercised, or merely claimed?
