• العربية
  • فارسی
Brand
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Theme
  • Language
    • العربية
    • فارسی
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
All rights reserved for Volant Media UK Limited
volant media logo
ANALYSIS

Decades of defiance: why Khamenei still believes time is on his side

Lawdan Bazargan
Lawdan Bazargan

Political activist and human rights advocate

Oct 1, 2025, 21:10 GMT+1Updated: 00:32 GMT+0
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei plants an olive sapling at his office complex in Tehran in solidarity with the Palestinian cause in this file photo, Mar 5, 2024.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei plants an olive sapling at his office complex in Tehran in solidarity with the Palestinian cause in this file photo, Mar 5, 2024.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei blocked any potential signal of compromise before President Masoud Pezeshkian even landed in New York—a move some saw as a reckless gamble but in fact a calculated strategy rooted in decades of survival.

By calling negotiations with the United States “pointless” and “harmful,” the 86-year-old theocrat closed the door in advance, after which Pezeshkian delivered one of the harshest speeches of his career on the UN rostrum.

The choreography left no doubt: foreign policy remains Khamenei’s domain, and presidents, however reform-minded are confined to carrying out his script.

Since taking power in 1989, Khamenei has built a structure designed to withstand shocks. He has consolidated control over the military, judiciary and intelligence services, silenced dissent before it could spread, and constructed a security state that has absorbed everything from economic collapse to mass protest.

Khamenei’s doctrine is simple: so long as no foreign power places “boots on the ground” in Tehran, the Islamic Republic can survive.

Regimes in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan collapsed only when foreign armies physically invaded. Iran’s ruler wagers that Israel lacks the capacity — and Washington the will — to do the same in Iran.

Weapon of time

Airstrikes, sabotage and cyberattacks may wound the system, but the Islamic Republic has bunkers intelligence tools designed to outlast them. This is the logic of endurance: time, not compromise, is Tehran’s strongest weapon.

Yet the June war with Israel revealed how fragile that calculation may be. Precision strikes and AI-driven targeting allowed Israel to decapitate Iranian command structures in hours.

For the first time, senior officers rather than foot soldiers became the primary casualties, along with hundreds of civilians. In such a war, no bunker guarantees safety.

Khamenei’s confidence is shaped not only by military assumptions but also by diplomacy.

One formative lesson came in 1997, when a German court found Iran responsible for the assassinations of three dissidents in a Berlin restaurant. European states briefly withdrew their ambassadors in protest, only to quietly return them months later.

For Khamenei, this was proof that Europe’s resolve is fleeting, its economic and political interests overriding its outrage. He has leaned on that lesson ever since.

Sanctions, what sanctions?

Even now, as the snapback mechanism is reactivated, he assumes enforcement will fray. He expects Europe’s divisions and Washington’s caution to leave loopholes that allow Iran to keep exporting oil, especially to China and India, at discounted rates.

Sanctions, in the octogenarian’s view, are never airtight. They are survivable obstacles, not existential threats.

Khamenei’s rhetoric serves multiple aims: it projects deterrence abroad by drawing red lines; reassures loyalists at home by projecting strength; frames any Western retreat as weakness; and, above all, buys time.

The longer Iran resists, the thinking goes, the more likely international resolve will weaken—as it has before.

But the strategy is not without risk.

Internal unrest can erupt faster and wider this time. Sanctions may dig deeper into the economy, hollowing out the state’s support base. Warfare itself has changed in ways that undercut the assumption that endurance alone ensures survival.

Khamenei continues to rely on the playbook that has carried him through three decades: repression at home, resilience abroad and a conviction that the West will ultimately step back.

The gamble is that history will repeat itself. The danger is that this time, it may not.

Most Viewed

Iran diplomacy wobbles as factions compete to avoid looking soft on US
1
INSIGHT

Iran diplomacy wobbles as factions compete to avoid looking soft on US

2
ANALYSIS

The politics of pink: how Iran uses cuteness to rebrand violence

3

Scam messages seek crypto for ships’ safe passage through Hormuz, firm warns

4
EXCLUSIVE

Family told missing teen was alive, then received his body 60 days later

5
INSIGHT

Is Iran entering its Gorbachev moment?

Banner
Banner

Spotlight

  • Diplomacy tolls at Hormuz as conflict returns to its doorstep
    OPINION

    Diplomacy tolls at Hormuz as conflict returns to its doorstep

  • Opposition to US talks grows in Tehran as ceasefire deadline nears
    INSIGHT

    Opposition to US talks grows in Tehran as ceasefire deadline nears

  • Tehran moderates see ‘no deal–no war’ limbo as worst outcome
    INSIGHT

    Tehran moderates see ‘no deal–no war’ limbo as worst outcome

  • The future has been switched off here
    TEHRAN INSIDER

    The future has been switched off here

  • Lights out, then gunfire: Witnesses recount Mashhad protest crackdown
    VOICES FROM IRAN

    Lights out, then gunfire: Witnesses recount Mashhad protest crackdown

  • Is Iran entering its Gorbachev moment?
    INSIGHT

    Is Iran entering its Gorbachev moment?

•
•
•

More Stories

Iran watchdog clears tougher espionage law targeting Israel, US cooperation

Oct 1, 2025, 13:27 GMT+1

Iran’s Guardian Council on Wednesday approved a bill imposing harsher penalties for espionage and collaboration with Israel, the United States and other “hostile states,” clearing the way for the law to be enacted once signed by President Masoud Pezeshkian.

The legislation, formally titled the “Intensification of Punishment for Espionage and Cooperation with the Zionist Regime and Hostile States Against National Security and Interests,” was passed by parliament in late June following the 12-day war between Iran and Israel.

The Guardian Council, a powerful 12-member body of clerics and jurists that vets legislation and elections in Iran, initially sent the bill back in July citing ambiguities, but said after revisions it no longer conflicted with Islamic law or the constitution.

  • New Iran espionage law halted for review, slowing post-war crackdown

    New Iran espionage law halted for review, slowing post-war crackdown

  • Iran's parliament approves death penalty for cooperation with Israel, US

    Iran's parliament approves death penalty for cooperation with Israel, US

The measure classifies espionage or intelligence cooperation with Israel and the US as “corruption on earth,” a charge under Iran’s penal code that can carry the death penalty.

It also criminalizes providing information, media content or assistance to groups deemed hostile, with prison sentences ranging from two to 15 years depending on the offense.

  • Iran executes man accused of spying for Israel

    Iran executes man accused of spying for Israel

  • Iran hangs nuclear scientist over alleged espionage for Israel’s Mossad

    Iran hangs nuclear scientist over alleged espionage for Israel’s Mossad

Supporters say the law is needed to counter infiltration and disinformation. “Any cooperation in media or propaganda activity, including sending videos or images to hostile channels that weaken public morale or create division, undermines national security and will face severe judicial response,” said Ebrahim Azizi, a former Revolutionary Guards commander and head of parliament’s national security committee.

  • Iran arrests over 700 accused of spying for Israel amid espionage crackdown

    Iran arrests over 700 accused of spying for Israel amid espionage crackdown

  • Iran to execute over 100 inmates over Israel spying charges - Sunday Times

    Iran to execute over 100 inmates over Israel spying charges - Sunday Times

The bill follows the June conflict in which Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian nuclear and missile sites, prompting Tehran to retaliate with hundreds of missile and drone launches.

Iranian authorities later announced the arrest of hundreds of people accused of spying for Israel and the US.

Rights advocates have expressed concern that the law’s broad definitions, including provisions applying retroactively, could restrict free expression and be used against journalists and activists.

After June war, is the Islamic Republic due for a 'paradigm shift'?

Sep 30, 2025, 20:23 GMT+1
•
Behrouz Turani

Once relegated to the world of academic social science, the term "paradigm shift" has gained traction in Iran's political discourse after a punishing 12-day war with Israel and the United States exposed the country's weakness.

With new international sanctions set to deepen economic suffering and no diplomatic or domestic opening yet visible, the severity of Iran's predicament is clear.

The term "paradigm shift" has become a euphemism for fundamental change to Iran’s political system, specifically, curbing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s nearly four decades of autocratic rule.

As Iran's primary and often sole decision-maker, Khamenei has shaped not only strategic affairs but also the daily operations of government, media and public life.

But a remarkable exchange between two natural political opponents aired by an independent media outlet appears to show that both sides of the political spectrum grasp the need for a profound shift, albeit couched in politically inoffensive terms.

On September 29, the Iranian website Entekhab posted a YouTube video featuring a debate between two prominent figures: Mohammad Reza Bahonar, a conservative heavyweight and member of the Expediency Council and Abolfazl Shakouri Rad, former leader of the reformist Unity of the Nation Party.

In the 90-minute video, Bahonar emphasized that a paradigm shift does not mean regime change.

“It’s not about abandoning principles,” he said. “It’s about adapting them to new realities. The revolution’s core, Islamic governance and independence, remains intact. But the world has changed. We can’t ignore the demands of the youth or the country’s economic challenges.”

Shakouri Rad agreed, framing the shift in terms of Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions: “This is Kuhn’s paradigm shift applied to politics, old models collapse under pressure. Iran is facing this due to sanctions, demographics and technological globalization.”

Kuhn (1922–1996) was an American historian and philosopher of science who popularized the concept of paradigm shifts.

'Mini-shifts'

Bahonar noted that Iran has experienced “mini-shifts” before, under President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989–1997), who pursued economic liberalization, and President Mohammad Khatami (1997–2005) who pushed for reforms despite resistance from Khamenei.

These shifts, Bahonar argued, were pragmatic rather than ideological.

Shakouri Rad added historical context: “Paradigm shifts often occur during crises like the 1979 revolution or the 1988 ceasefire with Iraq. Today, we’re in a post-heroic phase. War veterans no longer dominate politics. Over 60% of the population is under 30. They demand transparency and reject the resistance narrative.”

Bahonar called for economic reform as the cornerstone of any shift: “The Resistance Economy is a good idea, but it will fail without global engagement. Sanctions have crippled us. A real shift requires pragmatic diplomacy. Domestically, we must decentralize power and empower local councils.”

Shakouri Rad focused on ideological reform, touching on the foundational theocratic doctrine of the country.

“Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) needs reinterpretation, not abolition. We must transition from exporting revolution to practicing defensive realism," he said.

Despite their differences, both politicians agreed on the need for generational transition. Shakouri Rad elaborated: “We need a hybrid model of Islamic values with modern efficiency, like Turkey’s early Erdogan era. The solution is bottom-up change through elections, not top-down fatwas. Data shows 70% of Iranians want better ties with the West.”

Bahonar warned of the risks of delay: “If the shift is too slow, economic collapse could trigger unrest.” Shakouri Rad echoed the concern: “Without change, brain drain will accelerate.”

Responding to viewers’ questions at the end of the segment, Bahonar reiterated: “Shift means dialogue, not submission. Change is an Islamic duty. The ‘evolve or perish’ idea isn’t Western—it’s Quranic adaptation.”

Sanctions response betrays Tehran's entrenched divides, policy drift

Sep 30, 2025, 07:50 GMT+1
•
Behrouz Turani

One thing unchanged by the return of UN sanctions is Tehran’s internal discord, with hardliners and moderates battling it out over decisions ultimately taken elsewhere.

Responses to the so-called snapback range from combative to despairing: hardliners celebrating, reformists urging more diplomacy and maverick parliamentarians calling for withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or even building nuclear weapons. Amidst it all, the government appears adrift.

President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday blamed Iran’s predicament on European states that activated the trigger mechanism, calling them “filthy and mean” without even attempting to lay out what he thinks lies ahead.

“They want us to surrender,” the president told a group of firefighters in Tehran. As for the response, “people have to resist.”

Other officials have responded with angry calls to withdraw from the NPT, ignoring the fact that exiting the treaty would further convince a skeptical West that Tehran’s self-styled peaceful nuclear program is veering toward weaponization.

Even more alarming are calls from parliamentarians and others to build nuclear weapons.

‘We should compromise’

Amid this flurry of reactionary rhetoric, sociologist Taghi Azad Armaki stood out with a different message.

“Iran should say that it is not standing against the rest of the world and that it is not going to fight the world,” he told moderate daily Etemad on Monday. “We should say that we are … ready to compromise,” Armaki added.

“The government is unable to say that, but civil society can … We should be part of the world, and not allow the world to unite against us.”

Armaki’s heartfelt pleas recall a Persian tale in which mice resolve to put a bell on a cat, only to admit none knew how—or dared— to do it.

Tall order

The only person who can end Tehran's confrontation with the West is the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Iran's ultimate decision-maker can instruct Pezeshkian to stop calling world leaders “filthy” and engage.

Since the vote last Friday, France and the UK have stressed that the snapback of UN sanctions should not mark the end of dialogue. But Iran’s current posture suggests that its temper may take time to cool and that incentives may be needed to bring it back to the table.

And that won’t be easy given hardliners' staunch opposition.

“Iran’s return to the negotiating table will not happen easily,” conservative politician Mohammad Hassan Asafari told Nameh News on Monday.

Among the many suggestions for Iran’s next move, Jomhouri Eslami editor Massih Mohajeri and Ham Mihan proprietor Gholamhossein Karbaschi noted that state TV and hardliners appear jubilant over the snapback.

Elephant in the room

Sociologist Armaki urged the government to limit hardliners’ airtime—ignoring, like almost every other voice in Tehran, the elephant in the room.

Ultimately, all decisions in Iran hinge on one man, who decided to air his views against talks with Washington hours before Pezeshkian landed in New York.

Moderate analyst Hadi Alami Fariman came close to addressing the core issue on Monday, but fell short.

“Iran has to choose between tension and diplomacy,” Fariman told reformist outlet Rouydad24. “We will not get any result without reforms … in our political structure.”

That silence underscores the impasse: until the real seat of power acknowledges the need for change, Iran’s answer to sanctions will remain more bluster than strategy.

Canadian immigration agency blocks deportation of former Iranian official

Sep 29, 2025, 19:48 GMT+1
•
Mahsa Mortazavi

A Canadian move to deport a former Iranian roads official working as an Uber driver over his previous work has been rejected an immigration review body for his lack of seniority in Tehran's ruling apparatus.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) ruled on August 12, 2025 to reject a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) application to deport Afshin Pirnoon.

Documents related to his case, shared with Iran International by Global News, indicate Ottawa's push to deport former Iranian officials faces a high evidentiary bar.

Canada's government barred entry and residency for “senior officials” of the Islamic Republic in 2022 citing accusations Tehran is a state-sponsored terrorism and systematic human rights abuser.

The policy aims also to prevent the risk of so-called transnational repression by Iran or its agents among Canada's sizable Iranian diaspora community. It tasks CBSA with cases of people it deems inadmissible to Canada to the IRB for review.

Pirnoon, worked as a civil engineer and Director-General of the Road Maintenance Office at Iran’s Road Maintenance and Transportation Organization for 22 years.

The IRB found he did not to meet the statutory definition of an Iranian “senior official” or to have “significant influence over the exercise of government power," therefore the legal requirement for his being deemed inadmissible was not met.

Pirnoon came to Canada on a tourist visa in 2022 and was working as an Uber driver when the Canada Border Services Agency launched deportation proceedings.

Three-year track record

Official data indicates that 23 individuals have been identified as suspected senior Iranian officials and 21 cases have been referred to the IRB.

But only three removal orders have been issued, with just one removal carried out to date, though some have departed voluntarily.

Canada has previously referred identified Iranian officials in the country to the IRB to assess their status and determine whether they qualify as “senior officials.”

These include Majid Iranmanesh, a former director-general in the Vice-Presidency for Science and Technology, whom the IRB found to be a senior official and ordered removed on February 2, 2024.

Another was Seyed Salman Samani, former deputy minister and spokesperson of Iran’s Interior Ministry, who received a removal order on March 20, 2024.

By contrast, in several other cases—including Pirnoon’s—the IRB has found that an official position alone, attendance of official ceremonies or routine administrative duties do not prove actual influence over policymaking or the exercise of power.

The record suggests that while the government and security agencies stress threats linked to transnational repression and public-safety imperatives, the evidentiary threshold for proving seniority and influence before the IRB remains high.

Khamenei’s reversal on secret US talks hamstrings president at UN

Sep 29, 2025, 19:35 GMT+1
•
Mehdi Parpanchi

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian departed Tehran for the United Nations in New York last week buoyed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's quiet blessing to start secret talks with Washington to ward off looming sanctions.

According to two members of Pezeshkian's delegation, the 86-year-old hardline theocrat had privately told the relatively moderate president he could start a secret dialogue if it headed off the return of United Nations sanctions due for the week's end.

But as their plane crossed the Atlantic, Khamenei delivered a fiery speech on state television categorically ruling out any talks with Washington in a reversal that stunned Pezeshkian and Iran's top envoy, according to the two sources.

Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi later confided before a closed-door meeting of Iranian experts and academics that renewed US talks were the only avenue to halt the return of the European-triggered sanctions, three participants told Iran International.

The episode shows the Supreme Leader and his top civilian officials are deeply at odds about how to chart Tehran's way out of the lingering impasse over its nuclear program which threatens further conflict after a punishing Israeli-US war in June.

Araghchi and US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff had held indirect talks for two months before a surprise Israeli military campaign on Iran on June 13.

The attacks were capped off by US strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites which appeared to bury much of Iran's highly-enriched uranium stockpiles but left the ultimate resolution of the West's standoff with Iran on its nuclear ambitions unresolved.

Khamenei in his speech and Pezeshkian in an address before the United Nations again said Tehran does not seek a bomb and hit out at sanctions as unfair and illegal.

Closed-door meeting in Manhattan

On Friday, Sept. 26, shortly after the UN Security Council rejected Russian and Chinese proposals to suspend the snapback of UN sanctions on Iran, Pezeshkian and Araghchi met with a small group of invited Iranian experts and academics at The Luxury Collection Hotel in Manhattan.

The session was scheduled to last an hour, but before it began, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi lingered in the lobby with a few of the invitees, speaking more candidly than usual about Tehran's predicament.

“The only way to stop the snapback was direct talks,” Araghchi told them. “And only direct talks can prevent further escalation. But we are not allowed to engage.”

He even suggested the participants urge Pezeshkian to try to persuade the Supreme Leader, but none of them did that.

Khamenei's U-turn on secret US talks

Three participants in the private meeting later recounted to Iran International, on condition of anonymity, that Araghchi elaborated further before the session began.

He explained that before leaving Tehran, Pezeshkian had raised the idea of direct engagement with the Supreme Leader. The Americans, he said, had laid out three firm conditions for such talks with envoy Steve Witkoff:

1. Public, on-the-record meetings with the press present before and after.

2. Disclosure of the location of 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.

3. Full access for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Araghchi said Ayatollah Khamenei had rejected public negotiations but explicitly agreed that secret direct talks would be acceptable if they could stop the snapback.

Yet by the time the delegation landed in New York, the Supreme Leader had gone on state television to rule out any talks at all — directly contradicting his private position and leaving the delegation blindsided.

Inside Tehran’s New York huddle

The private hourlong session with Pezeshkian brought together a group of academics and experts including Houshang Amirahmadi, an academic and longtime advocate of US–Iran engagement; Vali Nasr, a scholar and former State Department adviser; and Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

The other participants included Hadi Kahalzadeh, a fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Djavad Salehi Esfahani, a professor of economics at Virginia Tech; Masoud Delbari, a senior energy expert and analyst; Ali-Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, a former Iranian parliamentarian and reformist activist; Mohammad Manzarpour, a freelance journalist; and Yousef Azizi, a PhD candidate at Virginia Tech.

Amirahmadi spoke first, and for nearly half the meeting. For about 25 minutes he laid out a stark binary: surrender or go nuclear. He argued that the United States’ main problem with Iran was not its nuclear program but its strength in the region. Washington, he said, does not want a “powerful Iran.” He strongly advised Pezeshkian that Iran must invest more heavily in its missile and military capabilities, declaring that the time had come to pursue a nuclear deterrent. His remarks went on so long that Iran’s UN envoy, Amir Saeed Iravani, eventually asked him to conclude.

Pezeshkian, throughout, took careful notes. When he returned to Tehran, he told journalists at the airport that in his meeting with Iranians, “one of the respected figures” had said the United States’ real problem with Iran was its strength. He did not name Amirahmadi but directly echoed his point.

Because of the length of Amirahmadi’s remarks, only a few others had time to weigh in. Parsi said the major sanctions were American sanctions, with UN measures adding complications but not being the primary concern. He added that despite the UN sanctions, he expected China to continue buying Iranian oil, saying Beijing would likely ignore the restrictions. Both Araghchi and Pezeshkian nodded in agreement. Parsi also insisted that direct dialogue with Washington remained the only way to avoid escalation and prevent Israel from exploiting Iran’s isolation.

Nasr offered a bleaker assessment, saying Tehran had missed its chance under President Biden and that little could now be recovered. He spoke briefly and did not engage further.

A system in crisis

The contradictions at the heart of Tehran’s decision-making were unmistakable. Privately, Khamenei had given conditional approval for secret talks, and Araghchi confided this to a few attendees, making clear that Iran’s leadership understood direct dialogue was the only path left.

Publicly, however, the Supreme Leader reversed himself overnight, denouncing all negotiations and leaving his own president and foreign minister uncertain of their mandate.

The episode revealed a system in crisis: with the president, the foreign minister, and many political figures pressing for de-escalation as the only way to avoid another war, while Khamenei alone stood in the way, shifting positions in a manner that even his closest envoys struggled to navigate.

The president’s trip to New York, meant to showcase pragmatism, instead underscored paralysis.

Editor’s Note:
Our initial report, based on sources, said that Farnaz Fassihi attended the meeting. The New York Times has since issued a statement saying that she was not present. Accordingly, her name has been removed from the report.