After the 12-day war, Iran’s leadership faces growing cracks in the political structure, a faltering diplomatic strategy, and increasing public disillusionment, revealing a system under deep internal strain.
The political landscape in Iran has entered a phase of turbulence following the 12-day conflict, with evidence of both internal dissent and ideological disarray. While hardline outlets like Keyhan insist that the war is ongoing—portraying it as a hybrid battle that includes information warfare and global conspiracy—other voices warn that the regime is dangerously detached from both global realities and the demands of its own people.
Rather than unified messaging, Iran regime’s leadership is engaged in a “war of narratives”. Conflicting statements about nuclear diplomacy, the role of the UN’s atomic agency, and engagement with the West reflect a fractured state apparatus unable to articulate a coherent post-war strategy. The regime simultaneously denies the persistence of war while ramping up media control and reviving security legislation like the controversial anti-fake news bill.
Diplomacy Deadlocked, War Logic Prevails
Diplomatic uncertainty looms large. Former regime MP Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh noted that “no diplomat speaks of the death of diplomacy,” warning that if a second war erupts, it will be a “war for survival” where all norms are discarded. His criticism of the regime’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi highlights a deeper issue: Tehran maintains backchannels but refuses to commit to structured negotiations.
The cold war in U.S.–Iran relations continues. Despite hopes for de-escalation, experts agree that no meaningful change has occurred since the conflict. Washington continues to demand zero enrichment, while Tehran asserts its right to nuclear advancement. The strategic ambiguity of Iran’s foreign policy, torn between confrontation and diplomacy, is now harming its international standing and economic recovery prospects.
The Legitimacy Crisis: Cracks in the System’s Core
Perhaps more alarming than diplomatic confusion is the deepening rift between state and society. Multiple commentators describe a growing “nation–state gap,” where citizens no longer trust their rulers. This was underscored by the resignation of Tehran’s Friday Prayer Leader, Kazem Seddiqi, a figure closely tied to the regime’s religious-political legitimacy. Though framed as a voluntary retreat for “scientific and religious activities,” his departure followed public backlash over his son’s corruption case—a scandal emblematic of the public’s waning faith in clerical leadership.
Far from healing public distrust, such symbolic exits are seen as cosmetic. Critics argue that if the regime continues its current path—marked by opacity, factional power struggles, and media repression—public cynicism will only deepen.
Power Reshuffling and Hardliner Decline?
Behind the scenes, power dynamics appear to be shifting. Ali Larijani becoming the head of the regime’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), and discussions of sidelining hardliners like Saeed Jalili, suggest a repositioning of the regime’s security doctrine. If true, this would indicate the marginalization of ideologues who opposed the nuclear deal and international engagement in favor of pragmatists seeking damage control.
Even pro-regime outlets acknowledge the internal strain. The shift could be seen as the early stages of a political “molting” process—an attempt to adapt to a changing domestic and international environment without conceding core power.
Government Gridlock and Structural Inefficiency
Meanwhile, tensions between the so-called technocrats appointed by previous regime president and Parliament remain unresolved, now playing out under Masoud Pezeshkian. Parliament continues to push for impeachments and greater control over ministries, including culture and energy—areas already plagued by blackouts and mismanagement.
The Pezeshkian government, according to analysts, is trapped between limited resources, a legacy of 20 years of policy failures, and systemic dysfunction. Without sweeping structural reforms—including price rationalization, private investment, and decentralized governance—the risk of state collapse in some sectors grows.
The Burden of the Past: A Political Deadlock Engineered by the Hardliners
Some editorials place the blame for this impasse squarely on the Principlist (conservative) political establishment, accusing them of empowering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ebrahim Raisi while sabotaging efforts like the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA). The symbolic burning of the JCPOA in Parliament, now seen as a strategic blunder, gave Israel and the U.S. grounds to reapply pressure and isolate Iran internationally.
As the country stumbles through this uncertain phase, more voices are demanding a reassessment of past ideological choices, especially regarding foreign policy and internal governance.
A Regime at a Crossroads
The overlapping crises—from diplomatic deadlock and economic freefall to leadership reshuffling and rising public distrust—paint a clear picture: Iran’s ruling system is in transition, but without a clear direction. The gap between the rulers and the ruled has widened to a dangerous degree. Calls for structural reform, transparency, and pragmatism are growing louder, even within the system itself.
Yet without decisive action—beyond symbolic resignations or media manipulation—the regime risks not just political recalibration, but systemic collapse. Whether the leadership chooses suppression or adaptation in the coming months will define Iran’s trajectory in a post-war world.
