As the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran enters its second week, Iran’s leadership is showing visible signs of internal strain, even as officials continue to publicly reject calls from Washington for an “unconditional surrender” and vow to continue fighting.
The divisions have come into sharper focus after the death of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli strike on February 28, an event that triggered a leadership transition and competing responses within Tehran’s political and security establishment.
Three developments in the days since, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s apology to neighbouring countries, the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader, and the growing influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, have highlighted the emerging fault lines between moderates, clerics and hardline security factions.
Apology that triggered backlash
Following Khamenei’s assassination, Iran formed a three-member interim leadership council under constitutional provisions to exercise supreme authority until a successor was selected. The council included Pezeshkian, judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei and senior cleric Ayatollah Alireza Arafi, according to AP.
The leadership initially promised swift retaliation and launched missile and drone attacks on Israeli and American targets, as well as infrastructure such as airports, oil refineries and hotels in Gulf countries including Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Divisions surfaced publicly on March 7 when Pezeshkian issued a pre-recorded state television address apologising for strikes that hit neighbouring states.
“I personally apologise to neighbouring countries that were attacked by Iran. Our commanders, leaders and loved ones lost their lives due to the brutal aggression that took place,” he said. “We didn't intend to violate neighbouring countries. As I have said many times, they are our brothers,” according to Reuters.
The remarks prompted immediate criticism from hardliners and security officials.
Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on X that “as long as the presence of US bases in the region continues, the countries will not enjoy peace.” Lawmaker Hamid Rasaei called Pezeshkian’s stance “unprofessional, weak and unacceptable,” arguing that countries hosting US bases should apologise instead.
Mohseni-Ejei also contradicted the president, stating that regional states had allowed their territory to be used for attacks on Iran and declaring that “heavy strikes on those targets will continue.”
The Revolutionary Guards issued their own warning that if “hostile actions continue, all military bases and interests” of the US and Israel across the region would be Iran’s “primary targets,” according to the Financial Times.
Facing the backlash, Pezeshkian quickly revised his position. Later on March 7 he wrote on X that Iran “had not attacked our friendly and neighbouring countries; rather, we have targeted US military bases, facilities, and installations in the region.”
In another state television appearance on March 8, he said his earlier remarks had been “misinterpreted by the enemy that seeks to sow division with neighbours.”
Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment
A day later, Iran’s leadership transition took another contentious turn with the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader.
According to The Economist, the move was strongly backed by hardline clerics and the IRGC but faced resistance from reformist and moderate figures who argued that the younger Khamenei lacked the senior clerical standing and political experience usually expected of the position.
Critics also warned that elevating the son of the former leader contradicted the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the hereditary Pahlavi monarchy and rejected dynastic rule.
Some figures within Tehran’s establishment had argued against quickly appointing a successor at all. Mohsen Sazegara, a founding member of the IRGC who later went into exile, told Bloomberg that a faction led by security council chief Ali Larijani preferred extending the interim council’s authority rather than rushing the succession process.
IRGC’s expanding role
Despite the objections, Mojtaba Khamenei’s longstanding ties with the Revolutionary Guards proved decisive. Bloomberg reported that he had built deep influence within IRGC command networks, including involvement in shaping senior appointments and security decisions.
The war has also strengthened the Guards’ position within the political system. The Economist reported that the organisation is operating with unprecedented autonomy, in some cases overshadowing the traditional clerical leadership in directing military strategy.
Reuters reported that senior ayatollahs urged the 88-member Assembly of Experts to accelerate its decision-making after Khamenei’s death, while Iran International said IRGC pressure on members intensified during emergency meetings.
The outcome, analysts say, underscores where real authority lies during the conflict. “Wartime tends to clarify power structures, and in this case the decisive voice is not that of the civilian leadership but of the IRGC,” Middle East Institute fellow Alex Vatanka told Reuters.
Uncertain leadership during wartime
Even as Iran’s leadership remains united in rejecting US and Israeli demands, the debates over regional attacks, the leadership succession and the expanding role of the Revolutionary Guards suggest growing differences over how the war should be fought.
With Iran continuing to face sustained military pressure from the US and Israel, Mojtaba Khamenei’s immediate challenge will be consolidating authority while navigating a conflict that has already exposed deep divisions within Tehran’s leadership structure.