Paths of war and diplomacy intertwine in the escalating confrontation between Washington and Tehran, where negotiation channels are no longer confined to traditional diplomats but have gradually shifted to more robust circles within the Iranian regime, led by the military and security institutions.
This transformation reflects the nature of the phase that Tehran describes as an 'existential war,' where political decisions are no longer separate from field calculations but are part of a system led by the 'men of the new leader,' amidst American attempts to understand the real centers of power within Iran.
Details of the Current Negotiations
In this context, a fundamental question arises: who is Washington actually negotiating with in Tehran? This question reveals the complexity of the Iranian scene more than it provides a clear answer, given the overlap of institutions and the multiplicity of decision-making circles.
Iranian affairs journalist Abdul Qadir Fayez states that the nature of the war Iran is waging makes the military institution the actual holder of strategic decision-making, explaining that the General Staff represents the unifying framework for all military forces, from the army to the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij.
Context and Background
The real center of gravity within this system is represented by the 'Headquarters of the Seal of the Prophets,' which coordinates between various branches of the military institution, where the influence of the Revolutionary Guard emerges as the most significant force in directing decisions.
Fayez points out that this structure places decision-making in Iran in the hands of the 'men of the new leader,' who primarily come from security, military, and intelligence backgrounds, explaining the nature of the channels that have been opened with the outside during the current crisis.
Implications and Effects
Regarding intermediaries, Fayez clarifies that the countries that have succeeded in opening communication channels with Tehran are those that have deep-rooted relationships with these security circles, such as Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey, where communication transcends the political dimension to intelligence and military levels.
Pakistan has deep security ties with Iran, while Egyptian coordination with Tehran relates to sensitive regional files such as the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb, while Turkey benefits from its security backgrounds in managing this type of communication.
Impact on the Arab Region
This mode of communication reflects, according to Fayez, that the current negotiation channel is not purely political but primarily a military-security channel aimed at reaching preliminary understandings that can later be transferred to the political track.
However, he emphasizes that any agreement cannot see the light of day without passing through political institutions, which explains the rising role of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, led by Abbas Araghchi, at this stage.
The name of Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf also emerges as a link between the military and political institutions, given his background in the Revolutionary Guard and the trust of security decision-making circles in him.
In turn, Dr. Alam Saleh, a professor of Iranian and Middle Eastern studies at the Australian National University, believes that the decision-making structure in Iran is more complex than it appears, as it is not limited to the leader's person but fundamentally relies on the Supreme National Security Council.
This council, which includes prominent military and security leaders, is the body that outlines strategic policies, while the leader's role is limited to final approval, granting the regime resilience despite strikes and assassinations.
The rising role of military mentality at this stage may reflect on the nature of Iranian policies, especially regarding the nuclear program and missile development, raising questions about the directions of the upcoming phase.
In contrast, Tim Constantine, deputy editor of the Washington Times, presents a more ambiguous view, asserting that uncertainty surrounds even the American side regarding the identity of the negotiating partner within Iran.
Opening communication channels, even amid ongoing military operations, represents a first step towards de-escalation, but it does not guarantee reaching an agreement, especially in light of the lack of clarity about who holds the final decision in Tehran.
This ambiguity is not limited to Washington but also includes those monitoring Iranian affairs, given the limited information about the status of the Supreme Leader and his actual role in managing the current crisis.