Trump says Iran’s regime is fragmented. The reality is more complicated

The death of Iran’s main military and political leaders forced a group of leaders, who previously competed with each other and who belonged to the entire political spectrum of the Islamic Republic, to decide the country’s future under the threat of an existential war and in the obvious absence of the highest decision-maker, Mojtaba Khamenei

“Seriously fragmented.” That’s how President Donald Trump described the Iranian government when he prolonged a ceasefire to give it time to come up with a “unified” proposal. Iran’s absence in Islamabad for a second round of talks with Vice President JD Vance showed how disjointed the leadership had become, the White House argued.

Iran observers see things differently. Iran has stated that the United States must end the blockade of Iranian ports before talks can resume, and many analysts guarantee that the leadership is more cohesive than they are making it out to be.

“I think this is a misreading of the Iranian leadership,” Mehrat Kamrava, a political science professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, told CNN. “The leadership has been very cohesive, and we saw that in the conduct of the war and in the negotiations.”

Governance in Iran has become much more complex since the United States and Israel eliminated most of the regime’s top military and political leaders, including Iran’s former supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A group of leaders who previously competed with each other and who belonged to the entire political spectrum of the Islamic Republic are now deciding the future of the country under the threat of an existential war and in the evident absence of the maximum decision-maker, Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as the new supreme leader.

These officials are also required to balance their vision for Iran’s future with internal pressure from more radical groups who refuse to declare defeat and admit the external pressure of Trump’s attempt to declare victory.

However, despite political differences, this group of officials seems determined to publicly project cohesion, even if they differ in the way they manage the war and conduct diplomacy with the US, according to experts.

“Different factions of the Iranian leadership are more aligned now than they were before the war,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told CNN. “Because this is a much smaller circle, this circle is more united in the strategy it uses in war” compared to previous restrictions under Ali Khamenei.

Demonstrate unity

Faced with intense speculation about whether Iran would participate in talks this week, Tehran maintained a consistent public position that its negotiators would not participate. He accused Washington of violating the ceasefire and of not being “serious in seeking a diplomatic solution”.

Even before the war, the Islamic Republic under Ali Khamenei maintained a clear list of “red lines” – including the right to enrich uranium, continued missile development and support for its allied groups – demands that it has maintained in current negotiations with the Trump administration.

Iran’s political leadership has made efforts to debunk reports of internal divisions and to project a unified approach to the country’s military objectives and negotiating strategy.

“Talking about divisions among senior officials is a well-worn political and propaganda tactic for Iran’s adversaries,” wrote Mehdi Tabatabai, deputy spokesman for the Iranian president, on Wednesday in X. “The unity and consensus among the battlefield, the public and diplomats at this time has been exceptional and remarkable.”

The regime elevated a person in charge to symbolize this unity. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the longtime speaker of Parliament and former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, led the first round of talks with the US in Islamabad and is now seen as one of the key figures representing the Islamic Republic.

Yet even when Ghalibaf landed in Islamabad for the first round of talks, he was accompanied by an unprecedented team of Iranian officials representing a broad political spectrum, in a deliberate attempt to demonstrate cohesion.

“Are there differences? Of course there are,” Parsi said. But concluding that the reason both sides can’t reach a deal is not Trump’s contradictory message but rather fragmented Iranian leadership is an argument “out of touch with reality,” he said.

Over the weekend, the US and Iran appeared to be moving closer to an agreement to end the seven-week war, CNN reported. Trump began posting about the talks on social media and speaking to several journalists by phone on Friday morning, as Pakistani intermediaries updated him on ongoing talks with Iranian officials in Tehran.

Some Trump officials privately acknowledged to CNN that the president’s public comments have been detrimental to the negotiations, noting the sensitivity of the conversations and Iranians’ deep distrust of the United States.

Wartime structures

Faced with the threat of annihilation, the Iranian regime dismantled its traditional system of rival power centers that had competed for almost five decades. Instead, a new war structure consolidated negotiators and political operators under a single military command, with the aim of leading the Islamic Republic out of the crisis without admitting defeat.

On the streets, large crowds representing the most radical factions in the country have demonstrated daily in support of the regime and against any agreement with Washington that puts Iran in a position of defeat.

These radical positions dominate Parliament and the state media, where any perception of willingness to allow Trump to declare victory is subject to strong criticism. When Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said last week that the Strait of Hormuz was open to maritime trade, he was heavily attacked by regime hardliners, forcing other officials to quickly issue clarifications.

This war structure differs significantly from the way the Islamic Republic was governed for 37 years under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

His son, Mojtaba, was appointed to lead the country but remains in hiding. There are reports that he has been injured and may be incapacitated, raising uncertainty about whether he is giving clear instructions to his subordinates – or whether they are simply having to guess what he wants without specific guidance.

“The system is now working in a different way. In the past we had institutions, which were supposed to discuss strategic issues and present advisory notes to the supreme leader for him to make the final decision,” said Hamidreza Azizi, researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

“Access to the supreme leader cannot be as regular as it should be,” he said. “This automatically means that other responsible parties have more room for maneuver to decide what steps need to be taken regarding war and peace.”