SouthernWorldwide.com – President Trump has stated that internal conflicts and disarray within Iran’s ruling establishment are contributing factors to the difficulty in reaching a peace agreement to end the war initiated by the U.S. and Israel on February 28.
However, analysts speaking to CBS News indicate that while power dynamics are shifting, there is minimal evidence of divisions hindering Iran’s leadership. They suggest that Mr. Trump’s pronouncements might be an attempt to identify a scapegoat as the White House struggles to articulate its own policy objectives.
Trump claims “nobody knows who is in charge”
One month after the assassination of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the initial U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran, which triggered a war that has significantly disrupted the global economy for over two months, President Trump declared that regime change in Iran was “complete.”
“The next regime is mostly dead,” he stated shortly after the strikes commenced on February 28, adding that U.S. negotiators were engaging with a “whole different group” of “very reasonable” individuals.
In recent weeks, his stance has shifted, attributing the slow diplomatic progress toward a peace deal, at least in part, to the nearly five-decade-old theocratic regime in Iran being “seriously fractured” and in a “state of collapse.”
“There is tremendous infighting and confusion within their ‘leadership,” Mr. Trump posted on social media in late April. “Nobody knows who is in charge, including them.”
Historically, ultimate political, military, and religious authority in Iran has been vested in a single figure: the supreme leader. Following the death of his father and predecessor, Ali Khamenei, in the initial wave of strikes, Iran appointed Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader.
A man walks past a large banner depicting Iran’s current supreme leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei and his predecessor and late father Ali Khamenei along a street in Tehran on May 6, 2026.
AFP via Getty Images
U.S. officials have reported that the younger Khamenei sustained severe injuries, potentially incapacitating him, in the attack that claimed his father’s life. There has been no independent verification of his health status, and he has not been publicly seen or heard from directly since his appointment as the nation’s highest authority.
Initially, this lack of public appearance contributed to perceptions of a power vacuum. However, another powerful institution in Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), may have swiftly filled any void in Tehran.
An Iranian transition “from divine power … to hard power”
The IRGC functions as a military, political, and economic entity that has historically reported directly and exclusively to the supreme leader. It oversees Iran’s external military and paramilitary operations, including managing relationships with a network of proxy forces across the Middle East, and also plays a role in domestic security, suppressing dissent.
A recent report by Reuters, citing Iranian officials and analysts, suggested that the new supreme leader’s role has become “largely to legitimize decisions made by his generals rather than issue directives himself.” Power is reportedly consolidating around a wartime leadership group comprising the Supreme National Security Council, the supreme leader’s office, and the IRGC, which now exerts dominant influence over both military strategy and critical political decisions.
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the Chatham House think tank in London, concurs that “we are moving into a transition of leadership in Iran,” which she believes could lead to “shifts in decision-making more broadly.”
This transition has been developing over several decades, she explained, as the ruling clerics have experienced a weakening of their 47-year hold on power, while the IRGC has augmented its own influence through significant business acquisitions and by increasing its political sway as former members have entered government.
Read more: Former Attorney General Eric Holder Discusses Redistricting with House Democrats
Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who previously served as a U.S. government negotiator, commented on a podcast in April that Iran has “moved from divine power … to hard power,” with the regime now “tethered” to the IRGC.
There have even been speculations about the IRGC attempting a coup, though such a scenario appears unlikely on the ground.
The IRGC has consistently derived substantial authority from its military might, but this also stems from the unit’s deep and direct affiliation with the institution of the supreme leader.
Without this connection to provide religious and ideological legitimacy, the force could be perceived by many Iranians as merely another military branch, rather than as divinely appointed protectors of the Islamic Republic’s political order, which a considerable segment of the population still supports.
A regime factionalized “on tactics”
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, whose office holds a position subordinate to the supreme leader, akin to a vice presidency in the U.S., is regarded as a moderate reformist within the regime. Many believe that he and other political figures advocate for a return to negotiations, driven by concerns over the repercussions of renewed full-scale war with the U.S.
Conversely, the IRGC has strived to project an image of strength.
“If you attack the infrastructure of the Islamic Republic of Iran, our response will no longer be an eye for an eye, but rather a head for an eye,” stated IRGC Major General Mohsen Reza’i, a military advisor to Khamenei, in March.
Rumors have circulated regarding a division between IRGC commander Brigadier General Ahmed Vahidi and Mohammed-Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliamentary speaker who led Iran’s negotiating team during the sole round of direct talks with U.S. officials since the war began. These talks, held in Islamabad in early April, concluded without any agreement to transform the ceasefire into a broader peace accord.
On Monday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, also part of the Iranian negotiating delegation, posted on X that “there’s no military solution to a political crisis,” a statement that could be interpreted as a veiled criticism of both the U.S. and the IRGC.
However, political figures like Pezeshkian and Araghchi possess limited influence within Iran’s power structure. Analysts suggest that these differences in opinion, which may be more publicly evident during the ongoing war, pose little threat to the regime.
Vakil informed CBS News that the regime is undoubtedly factionalized “on tactics, particularly with regard to the negotiations.”
There have been subtle criticisms exchanged between more moderate figures and ultraconservatives, particularly concerning concessions to the U.S.
The IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency published, and subsequently deleted, an editorial in late April that mocked ultraconservatives, likening their expectations for the talks to a “magic beanstalk.”
Conversely, ultraconservative cleric and Iranian parliament member Mahmoud Navabian criticized the very act of holding negotiations with the U.S. as “pure damage” to the country. He argued on X that “Iran’s oil is selling for double the pre-war price,” implying that those who favor a negotiated end to the conflict are “cowards.”
However, the ultraconservatives represent a small minority. The Iranian parliament recently voted overwhelmingly in support of a statement endorsing the negotiating team.
Trump administration “a bit less aligned” than Iran’s regime?
While differing viewpoints exist, Vakil told CBS News that the political differences in Tehran appear comparable to those observed in Washington.
She noted that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth “is focused on delivering a successful military campaign, whereas [Treasury Secretary] Scott Bessent is focused on the economic portfolio of interests for the U.S.”
“So to me, this is all very normal,” Vakil stated, adding that in Iran, “all of the different groups and individuals are aligned in the preservation of the regime and its security and stability.”
The evolution of power in Tehran does not necessarily signify fragility within the Iranian regime; however, experts tell CBS News that the White House might have a vested interest in portraying it as such.
“While the Trump administration may have initially hoped for a ‘Venezuela option,’ featuring a Delcy Rodriguez-like figure stepping into leadership, no such option existed” in Iran, Mona Yacoubian, Director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CBS News.
“Instead, we have seen that initial decapitation strikes have led to an IRGC-dominated regime in Iran that has adopted a harder-line posture,” she explained. “The supreme leader no longer appears to have the final word on decision-making … Instead, decisions regarding Iran’s negotiating posture with the United States appear to be taken by a collective group of IRGC leaders.”
Vakil believes that Mr. Trump likely “exaggerated or misrepresented the divisions” in Iran “as an excuse” for a negotiating process that “hasn’t been as easy or quick to deliver on Washington’s side than perhaps Trump has wanted.”
“It’s easy to blame it on [Iran],” she commented.
Vakil suggested that Iran’s rulers “have very clear red lines, and it’s much more clear in terms of what they’re trying to achieve, which is the regime’s survival — a permanent deal with guaranteed sanctions relief — whereas the U.S. has been a bit less aligned and less clear.”
© 2026 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
