More than six weeks after he was announced as the new supreme leader following his father’s assassination, Iranians have still not seen or heard from Mojtaba Khamenei.
Khamenei’s absence is conspicuous in the midst of a conflict seen as an existential threat to the regimes that have ruled both countries for nearly half a century. Instead, statements attributed to the 56-year-old cleric have been read out on national television and posted on social media. The regime has even used AI-generated videos of Khamenei delivering his messages, fueling speculation that the new supreme leader is incompetent or overseas.
That is in stark contrast to his father, the late Ali Khamenei, who was an important face of Iranian decision-making for decades. Under him, not a week went by without a speech, a verdict, or a carefully timed intervention.
Officials told CNN last month that Khamenei suffered a broken leg, bruised left eye and minor lacerations to his face in the same series of airstrikes that killed his father and top Iranian military commanders.
Another Reuters report, citing unnamed sources, said he was participating in meetings with senior officials via conference calls and was involved in decision-making on key issues, including the war and new negotiations with the U.S. government.
Is Khamenei involved? Is he setting the parameters and drawing the red lines that negotiators need? Or is the leadership position functionally vacant, and if so, who has the decision-making power?
Ali Baez, director of the International Crisis Group’s Iran project, said that while “Mr. Mojtaba does not appear to be in a position to actually make important decisions or micromanage negotiations,” “the system is using him to get final approval on important broad decisions, not as a negotiation tactic.”
“The system deliberately emphasizes Mr. Mojtaba’s involvement because, unlike his father who regularly comes out and comments on the negotiation situation, it provides a shield against internal criticism,” he added. “Since Mr. Mojtaba is missing, it is an easy cover for Iranian negotiators to attribute their views to Mr. Mojtaba to protect themselves from criticism.”
US President Donald Trump has boasted that Iran has undergone regime change since Khamenei’s killing and has described those currently negotiating on Iran’s behalf as “rational.”
“We’re engaging with people that we’ve never interacted with before,” he said last month.
Iran’s opaque political system makes finding answers even more difficult. But the longer Khamenei stays away from public life, the more doubts will grow.
One survivor of the US and Israeli purge of Iran’s political and military leadership was Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the country’s longtime speaker of parliament, who led the initial negotiations with the US in Islamabad.
The former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander, who was involved in suppressing the reformist student movement, has emerged as one of Iran’s few politicians who can accommodate both suit-wearing diplomats and battle-weary soldiers.
Ghalibaf joined Foreign Minister Abbas Aragushi and a large delegation of Iranian officials in Islamabad, in what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to show solidarity.
While negotiating the survival of the regime abroad, at home it must become increasingly anxious about negotiations with the United States and manage bases that continue to inflict pain on the world as punishment for its attacks on Iran.
Since the outbreak of war, the base has rallied in the streets to publicly show support for a regime facing an existential threat. But even as these supporters show solidarity, they are scrutinizing every move by officials to ensure the regime’s survival.
“If negotiations were difficult before the conflict, they are now much more complex,” Danny Sitrinowitz, an Iran expert at the Israel National Security Institute, wrote of X. “Iran faces an increasingly decentralized, hardline and ideologically rigid regime that interprets its resilience in conflict as a form of divine victory.”
U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said the Iranian delegation would need to return home to seek approval from the Supreme Leader or “someone else” after last week’s negotiations ended without a deal.
Until now, an agreement without the Supreme Leader’s blessing has not been one that Iranian politicians could have put together. However, Iran may have entered a new phase in which visible leadership buy-in is no longer needed.
In the apparent absence of a supreme leader, Iran’s surviving politicians are caught between the twin pressures of dealing with the constant fallout of President Trump’s public discourse (which has proven to be detrimental to dialogue) and a hardline domestic base that views any compromise with the United States as capitulation.
“This is very difficult to manage… This represents a real dilemma,” Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International Security Studies, told CNN’s Becky Anderson. “They have to walk a tightrope in balancing all the pressures at home and abroad.”
The informal wartime agreement, which has elevated some Iranian officials to leadership positions, has confused even the most staunch regime supporters about who makes decisions.
When Foreign Minister Araghchi declared the Strait of Hormuz open to commercial navigation last week, he was criticized by Trump’s supporters for pre-emptively giving President Trump an opportunity to declare victory.
Following Araghchi’s declaration, the popular state-run news outlet Fars News reported that “Iranian society is in a state of turmoil.” Another state media said the measure “requires approval from the leadership and requires officials to explain the matter.” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also came under fire last month after apologizing to Arab countries and vowing to refrain from further attacks.
These media criticisms have led to growing speculation that there may be internal conflict among politicians. However, after Araghchi was attacked, Ghalibaf gave a national address assuring the people of unity.
“This administration is not out of the woods yet,” Baez said. “This is a fight for survival to this day, and they are in no position to get drawn into internal conflict because they could go back to war at any time.”
For now, Iran’s new supreme leader, accustomed to operating from the shadows, is serving a useful purpose for the country’s veteran politicians.
“Attributing opinions to him, even if he doesn’t necessarily agree with them, is a good cover for Iranian negotiators to protect themselves from criticism,” Baez said. “Those who lack action cannot fight back.”
