Iran’s rival political factions are increasingly using the authority of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei as a tool in an escalating internal power struggle, according to experts. The situation has deepened tensions within Iran’s leadership, with conflicting accounts emerging regarding the extent of the supreme leader’s involvement in governance. Two reports published by Iran International detailed the strained relationship between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and the new supreme leader. In one report, senior cleric Mohammad-Bagher Kharrazi, a relative of the Khamenei family by marriage, claimed that Pezeshkian had repeatedly threatened to resign and was warned that his next resignation would be accepted. According to Kharrazi, Khamenei reportedly said, “If he resigns one more time, I will approve it.” Pezeshkian’s office dismissed these claims as baseless, with Mehdi Tabatabaei, the president’s deputy for communications and information, calling them “an outright lie.” Another presidential advisor stated that Kharrazi had no direct contact with the supreme leader and was known for spreading “strange stories.” Hours after the first report, Iran International released a second claim, asserting that Pezeshkian had met Mojtaba Khamenei only once. The meeting took place in a vehicle with tinted windows at an undisclosed location in Tehran. According to the report’s unnamed sources, the encounter lasted several minutes, and both men were unable to see each other. Pezeshkian was not allowed to shake Khamenei’s hand. The report further suggested that the president later doubted whether the voice he heard belonged to the supreme leader. These allegations remain unverified. Pezeshkian previously described a significantly different version of the meeting, stating that he had spent approximately two and a half hours with Khamenei in a cordial atmosphere. This discrepancy highlights the growing uncertainty surrounding the supreme leader’s role and influence within the government. Kasra Aarabi, director of IRGC research at United Against Nuclear Iran, noted that the competing narratives around Pezeshkian and Khamenei reflect a broader struggle within Iran’s ruling elite. He described the regime as an “Islamist oligarchic mafia system,” where the supreme leader functions as the “godfather” who arbitrates among rival factions and ensures their access to power and resources. With the previous supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, having stepped down, the new leader’s prolonged public absence has created confusion about who holds actual authority. Aarabi explained that the system relies heavily on the presence of a central figure, the “godfather.” If that figure is absent, whether due to incapacity or nonexistence, a vacuum emerges between competing Islamist factions. These groups are not primarily divided by ideological differences, he emphasized. Instead, they compete over raw power and economic interests. In such an environment, Aarabi argued, Mojtaba Khamenei’s name has become a political instrument. Rival factions can invoke his authority to legitimize their actions, limit their opponents' influence, or justify decisions whose origins remain obscure. This dynamic underscores the increasing politicization of the supreme leader’s legacy and the ongoing instability within Iran’s leadership structure. As the situation unfolds, the implications for Iran’s domestic and international policies remain unclear. The continued ambiguity surrounding Khamenei’s role and the competing narratives involving Pezeshkian suggest that the power struggle is far from resolved. The outcome of this internal conflict could shape the trajectory of Iran’s future governance and its engagement with global powers.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
United States
