Iran-US Relations: Tensions Rise
Will Iran attend negotiations with the United States in Islamabad? This is one of the questions that remains unanswered as the end of the ceasefire is expected this Wednesday evening, April 22 in Washington time. Beyond Iran’s desire to put pressure on the United States, behind this question lies the expression of divergent lines within the Iranian regime. Because beneath the apparent unity of the regime, strong political tensions are brewing.
“On the Iranian side, the delegation is by no means homogeneous. It brings together different factions of the regime, each with its own priorities, red lines, and interests,” confirms Adel Bakawan, director of the European Institute for Studies on the Middle East and North Africa, interviewed on Monday by Le HuffPost.
The disagreements within the Islamic Republic do not stem from the current war. However, the death of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, killed on February 28 in American and Israeli strikes, has added another dimension to these tensions.
“You have historically on one side the state linked to the Supreme Leader’s office with the support of the Revolutionary Guards. On the other hand, the government, which includes the president, ministers, and deputies. Today, there is a real divide between the two,” explains the specialist.
After the Death of Ali Khamenei, the Power Vacuum
Since the death of Ali Khamenei, who previously had the power to make final decisions, all these actors find themselves within the Supreme Council of Iranian Security. “The two entities confront each other and must vote on each decision by majority: to continue the war, to hold negotiations,” says Adel Bakawan.
Following Khamenei’s disappearance, Iranian security chief Ali Larijani, a consensus figure within the regime, has firmly controlled both factions. However, he was also killed in enemy attacks on March 17. Mojtaba Khamenei, the new Supreme Leader since then, is in uncertain health, raising doubts among experts about his ability to exercise power.
A power vacuum has allowed government voices to be heard more clearly. “Since the death of Ali Khamenei, nationalists have asserted that the current situation is the fault of the other camp,” says Adel Bakawan.
Economic Survival vs. Security Guarantees
These differing opinions directly impact negotiations with Americans. “Each group watches the others while trying to impose its negotiation framework,” specifies Adel Bakawan. For the government, the Iranian economy, currently in crisis, should be the main focus. “These so-called moderate currents primarily insist on lifting economic sanctions and reintegrating Iran into the international system, seen as crucial for the regime’s medium-term survival,” he explains.
Additionally, more radical factions emphasize strict security guarantees: refusal of any interference, demand for non-aggression, and recognition of Iran’s right to maintain and develop defensive military capabilities. This opposition explains the ongoing adjustments of Iranian positions, mostly kept behind the scenes.
At the beginning of the conflict, some disagreements were public, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian’s apologies after a week of Gulf countries’ bombings. He had also promised to limit these attacks. These statements were criticized by ultraconservative religious lawmaker Hamid Rasai as unprofessional.
The regime quickly realized the importance, for its survival, of maintaining a united front, especially towards the United States and Israel. This necessity led to the speedy appointment of the new Supreme Leader. “The process must be accelerated to deceive the enemy and preserve the nation’s unity and solidarity,” said Ayatollah Nouri Hamedani. Indeed, the differences between conservatives and moderates have been used as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the West.
While these divisions may weaken Iran’s position in the conflict, paradoxically, they could strengthen it nationally. “Perhaps it is thanks to this fracture that the regime survives. There will be no fatal blow, because with these two camps, there is real diversity in the regime. The anger of the population can only focus on one camp,” concludes Bakawan.
