As the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its sixth month, Washington appears to be betting that sustained military pressure will fracture Tehran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently suggested that some Iranian officials had contacted the Trump administration, indicating divisions between those seeking an agreement and hardline forces. However, while such divisions exist, Washington may be misreading their dynamics amid the conflict.

Currently, external attacks have compressed internal disagreements rather than causing an open rupture. When the fighting subsides, a struggle is expected over Iran’s recovery path. Security institutions argue that Iran endured because it retained the capacity to retaliate and now must restore deterrence.

The formal center of authority remains with the supreme leader, whose son Mojtaba was appointed as his successor. Yet, this appointment has not automatically transferred the political influence, institutional relationships, or symbolic credibility accumulated by Ali Khamenei over decades.

The security establishment, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its volunteer paramilitary Basij, the regular army (Artesh), and intelligence and internal-security bodies, plays a significant role. Meanwhile, the government shoulders much of the responsibility for maintaining state functions and conducting foreign negotiations within security limits set by the supreme leader and the Supreme National Security Council.

For now, tensions remain subdued as the war provides a unifying narrative in the short term, but competing visions for Iran’s post-war future persist.

Sources