Questions surrounding Iran are no longer confined to political analysis or regional speculation. As tensions continue to escalate across the Middle East, increasing attention is being directed toward who truly holds power in Tehran, who controls decisions of war and diplomacy, and whether Iran’s elected leadership still possesses meaningful authority.

Analysts and researchers specializing in Iranian affairs argue that Iran is now facing one of its most complicated internal periods since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Many believe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has evolved into the dominant force within the country, extending its influence beyond military operations into politics, security, and regional strategy.

Political researcher Mohammed Al Zaghoul stated that the current struggle inside Iran is no longer centered solely on the Strait of Hormuz, ballistic missiles, or the nuclear program. Instead, he argues, the real battle concerns the future leadership of Iran itself and who will ultimately gain legitimacy to rule the country.

Al Zaghoul pointed to contradictions in Iran’s recent regional messaging. Threats directed toward Gulf states were reportedly followed by official denials after attacks occurred, a pattern he says reflects confusion and imbalance within Iran’s decision-making structure.

The report also highlighted the weakening political role of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who reportedly faced criticism after issuing conciliatory messages toward Gulf countries. According to analysts, moments of regional escalation reveal that authority increasingly shifts away from elected institutions and toward military and security bodies led by the Revolutionary Guard.

At the same time, questions continue to emerge regarding the growing behind-the-scenes influence of Mojtaba Khamenei. Observers note that statements attributed to Iran’s leadership have recently adopted a harsher and more confrontational tone, which many interpret as evidence of the expanding role of security institutions in shaping state policy.

Journalist Mohammed Al Hammadi argued that the Revolutionary Guard has long represented the true center of power in Iran, regardless of the existence of civilian offices or elected political institutions. He noted that major military operations and regional strategic decisions are consistently associated with the Guard rather than with Iran’s formal government structures.

Meanwhile, writer and political analyst Abdel Latif El Menawy explained that the Revolutionary Guard itself is not entirely unified. According to him, one faction prioritizes economic influence and regional expansion, while another embraces a more ideological and confrontational vision rooted in revolutionary doctrine.

Regarding negotiations with the United States, analysts believe Iranian negotiators may no longer possess full authority to make independent decisions, as key strategic policies increasingly require approval from military and security circles within the regime.

Observers conclude that Iran today appears to be governed by overlapping centers of power rather than a single unified leadership structure, leaving the region facing uncertain possibilities that range from escalation and confrontation to cautious diplomacy and temporary de-escalation.