Azernews.Az

Ulviyya Poladova

Read more

The escalation in the Persian Gulf has once again exposed possible fractures inside Iran’s political and military leadership. Reports published by Iran International suggest that tensions between President Masoud Pezeshkian and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are becoming increasingly visible amid regional military escalation and attacks on the United Arab Emirates.

According to sources familiar with discussions in Tehran, President Pezeshkian reacted with anger to missile strikes and drone attacks allegedly carried out by IRGC-linked structures without coordination with the government. He reportedly described the attacks as "completely irresponsible" and warned that such actions threatened diplomatic efforts and regional stability.

Shortly afterward, however, the head of the presidential administration, Mohsen Haji Mirzaei, publicly denied any disagreements between the president and the IRGC command. Iranian state media emphasized that there were "no differences" between Pezeshkian and military leadership.

Yet the very need for such public denials has intensified speculation that deeper contradictions are emerging inside Iran’s governing system.

But recent developments in Iran suggest not simply a routine political disagreement, but a deeper structural struggle over who actually governs the country - elected institutions, the Supreme Leader’s office, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps itself.

The IRGC was established after the 1979 Islamic Revolution on the basis of paramilitary revolutionary committees loyal to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The fighters of these units were called "Pasdars," meaning "guardians" or "protectors" in Persian. Over time, however, the IRGC transformed into a powerful, mobile, combat-capable military and political structure with influence far beyond traditional defense functions. Today, the IRGC is not simply a military organization. It is one of the most influential institutions in Iran’s political, economic, intelligence, and regional security architecture.

Reports about communication problems between President Pezeshkian and circles close to the Supreme Leader are increasingly being interpreted as signs of a fragmented decision-making system inside Iran.

The tensions emerged at a moment when diplomatic efforts to preserve the ceasefire in the region continue, while at the same time the gap between military and political approaches inside Iran’s leadership appears to be widening.

Within Iran’s power structure, key decisions in the fields of security and defense are ultimately taken at the highest level of the system and coordinated with the country’s main state institutions. This is exactly why the president’s reported frustration is politically significant.

President Pezeshkian appears to represent a more diplomatic and economically focused approach, prioritizing de-escalation, sanctions relief, and regional stability.

The IRGC, meanwhile, traditionally views strategic pressure and deterrence as essential tools for protecting Iran’s geopolitical position and influence across the Middle East.

The disagreement therefore reflects not simply a personal conflict, but two competing visions of statecraft.

One important example came in March, when Masoud Pezeshkian reportedly did something no previous Iranian president had done before - he apologized to neighboring countries for attacks launched from Iranian territory and promised that escalation would stop.

However, only hours later, the skies above Dubai and Abu Dhabi reportedly lit up with air defense interceptions as drones were engaged.

At the same time, official Telegram channels linked to the IRGC allegedly published an unprecedented statement: "The President made a mistake. Ignore his words."

If these reports are accurate, they may point to one conclusion - that a real internal split inside the country already existed, while strikes by Israel and the United States only intensified it further.

According to diplomats and intelligence analysts, the contradictions inside Iran’s political elite may signal a deep institutional fracture at the heart of the state. In the middle of the Gulf conflict, Iran may be facing a dangerous situation of "dual power," where civilian and military-security structures increasingly pursue different agendas. Such internal rivalry could weaken the country even more during wartime.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that not all information coming from Iranian sources may be fully accurate. Some reports may also represent deliberate disinformation or strategic signaling intended to confuse opponents or manipulate regional perceptions.

In general, any open move by the IRGC against the president under current circumstances would hardly benefit official Tehran and could become extremely costly for the system itself. Such a scenario could destabilize internal political balance, increase international pressure, and further worsen the economic situation. Iranian authorities could face serious risks if the country falls into deep economic crisis while simultaneously dealing with external confrontation and internal fragmentation.

The reported tensions between President Masoud Pezeshkian and the IRGC reflect more than a routine political disagreement. However, the widening gap between political and military approaches inside the leadership may increase regional instability, complicate diplomatic efforts, and create greater unpredictability across the Middle East. For Western powers and regional states alike, the central question is no longer simply what Iran intends to do, but increasingly who inside Iran is making the decisions?