Signals from Trump regarding alleged or existing contacts with Iran's leadership are likely intended not only for foreign policy objectives but also for domestic political goals. Specifically, they may aim to sow distrust and competition within Iran’s elite by leaking information about "secret negotiations" and hinting at potential dialogues involving certain individuals. This strategy aligns with the logic of psychological warfare and information warfare: creating an atmosphere of suspicion, questioning the loyalty of certain political and military leaders, and undermining consensus on key diplomatic issues.
The unity among Iran’s political, military, and religious institutions is a crucial factor in its resilience during conflict. Against this backdrop, narratives about "internal divisions" can be seen as attempts to inflict damage—potentially more consequential than direct military pressure.
Nevertheless, discussions surrounding these alleged negotiations remain highly intriguing when considering potential political figures who might participate. According to U.S. sources, one such candidate could be Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, one of the most influential figures in Iran’s political landscape. Ghalibaf holds a unique position within Iran’s power structure. On one hand, he represents the Parliament—a key institution for political legitimacy—and plays a pivotal role in balancing interests among various elite factions. On the other hand, he maintains strong ties with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the country’s religious leadership, making him a potential bridge between the centers of military, political, and spiritual decision-making. In the absence of formal communication channels between Washington and Tehran, such individuals become especially significant as possible informal negotiators.
However, officially, Tehran denies any negotiations. The Ghalibaf office has stated that no talks with the United States have taken place or are planned. This stance conforms to Iran’s traditional diplomatic practice, aimed at minimizing external pressure and preserving an image of strategic autonomy. Public denial of negotiations does not rule out the existence of private communication channels, but it underscores Iran’s unwillingness to acknowledge any dialogue initiated by the U.S. Moreover, even moderate Iranian politicians would face accusations of betrayal if they engaged with Trump; should Tehran agree to negotiations, explicit approval from both the Supreme Leader and the IRGC would likely be required, as they currently oversee the preservation of Iran’s institutional integrity.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1860768561036295/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.