Iran International
A senior aide to President Masoud Pezeshkian has turned Iran’s dispute over the US memorandum into a fight over authority, arguing that Supreme Leader’s views are subject to expert review within the state’s decision-making bodies rather than implemented automatically.
Vice President Mohammad-Jafar Ghaempanah came under fierce criticism from ultra-hardliners after saying Khamenei’s recent message on the memorandum showed respect for the Islamic Republic’s institutional decision-making process, not opposition to the agreement.
The dispute follows the publication of a written message attributed to Khamenei, in which he said he had “a different view in principle” about the memorandum but approved it after receiving assurances from the Supreme National Security Council and its chairman, Pezeshkian, that Iran’s national interests and those of the so-called Axis of Resistance would be protected.
That phrase has become the center of an increasingly bitter dispute.
Ultra-hardliners argue that Khamenei’s statement proves he had serious reservations about the agreement and accepted it only under pressure.
Some conservative figures and media outlets, including the hardline daily Kayhan, have warned that portraying the Supreme Leader as being at odds with the SNSC risks deepening political polarization.
A message read two ways
According to Ghaempanah, Khamenei had instructed that the memorandum be discussed at an SNSC meeting attended by senior military commanders, and had said the agreement should be accepted if three-quarters of members approved it.
“If every opinion expressed by the Leader were implemented without question, there would be no need for institutions such as parliament or the SNSC. The Leader expresses his views, and those views are examined by experts,” he added.
Ghaempanah said all but one member voted in favor of signing the memorandum, after which Khamenei authorized it while warning that “Iran must not retreat in the face of excessive American demands.”
He also said Khamenei’s reported remark that he had “a different view in principle” did not mean opposition to the memorandum, but instead strengthened Iran’s bargaining position with the United States.
Authority at the center of backlash
Ultra-hardliners interpreted Ghaempanah’s remarks as diminishing the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, or Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, arguing that he had implied the Supreme Leader’s view could be subordinated to decisions taken by the SNSC.
Reza Narimani, a prominent eulogist or maddah (religious singer) associated with the ultra-hardline camp, accused Ghaempanah of misunderstanding the concept of Velayat-e Faqih.
Writing on the hardline Raja News website, Narimani said Ghaempanah should not hold office if he believed “not everything the Leader says is binding,” arguing that practical commitment to the Leader’s directives is a prerequisite for serving in the Islamic Republic.
He further wrote that Ghaempanah “is not in a position to subject the Leader’s opinion to expert review because the Leader’s opinion itself is the expert judgment within the framework of divine law.”
Addressing Ghaempanah directly, Narimani added: “The problem is your understanding. Your understanding of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist is flawed, and that is why the country’s problems remain unresolved. Instead of negotiating with America and looking to the West to solve the country’s problems, improve your own understanding until it reaches that of the Leader.”
The comments were widely shared by ultra-hardline social media users.
One user, Hamid Khorasani, wrote: “This system is the system of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. Either you do not understand the meaning of Absolute Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, or you do understand and are acting on behalf of the enemy.”
Another user wrote: “You cannot consider your own opinion on par with the opinion of the Leader! According to the Constitution … the Leader’s opinion is the top priority of the entire system and governmental institutions.”
The 'coup' claim spreads
The controversy comes amid an escalating ultra-hardline campaign against the Pezeshkian administration over the US memorandum.
Hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian has already accused Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf of carrying out a “coup” against the Supreme Leader by bypassing his authority to push through the agreement with Washington.
A hardline social media user, Shahram Rashidnia, wrote that “the time for advice and warnings to Pezeshkian’s government is over; the coup against the Leader is now open and explicit.”
He urged supporters to use Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies to defeat what he described as the conspiracy.
Government says remarks distorted
Supporters of the government argue that Ghaempanah was explaining Khamenei’s message, not challenging his authority.
They say the text shows that Khamenei initially held a different view but approved the memorandum after receiving guarantees from Pezeshkian on behalf of the SNSC, while making clear that implementation depended on the United States honoring its commitments and avoiding excessive demands.
The Executive Vice Presidency’s public relations office issued a statement on Wednesday rejecting criticism of Ghaempanah’s remarks, saying they had been taken out of context and distorted.
It said his comments “in no way conflict with the position of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist.”
The statement also warned that “in the current sensitive circumstances, taking officials’ remarks out of context and creating a false dichotomy between the Leader and the state’s institutions not only fails to protect the position of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist but could weaken national cohesion and distort understanding of governance in the Islamic Republic.”
Kharratian has often argued that Iran must preserve what he sees as its strategic leverage in any confrontation or negotiation with Washington, including its military and nuclear capabilities, control over pressure points such as the Strait of Hormuz, the impact of oil prices and political divisions inside the United States.
His latest remarks have triggered debate across Iranian media and social networks.
Some experts interviewed by Iran International said any restructuring of the IRGC would likely amount to little more than a rebranding exercise, preserving the Guards’ power while trying to shed some of their political and economic baggage.
Others see the debate as a sign that Iran’s leadership understands the country cannot emerge from the recent war unchanged.
Proposal predates the war
The discussion is not entirely new. Shortly before the outbreak of the recent war, the moderate daily Jomhouri-e Eslami proposed merging the IRGC into the regular army, arguing that Iran’s security and economic conditions required a review of the country’s military structure.
The newspaper said such a move could create a more coherent defense system. But its argument went beyond military organization.
The article also criticized the IRGC’s growing reach outside the battlefield, including its role in the economy, politics, media and parts of diplomacy.
It said that expansion had not produced greater national power or strategic cohesion, but had instead given the IRGC the image of a controversial, factional and multifaceted institution.
Domestically, the newspaper argued, the Guards had become a source of political dispute.
Abroad, it said, their expanded role had given Iran’s adversaries a pretext for pressure, sanctions and costly decisions against Iran’s national interests.
Hardline backlash
Jomhouri-e Eslami’s proposal drew an immediate backlash from conservative media.
The hardline newspaper Kayhan described the idea as “a project to eliminate the IRGC,” comparing it to what it called US and Israeli efforts to dismantle Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces.
It dismissed the proposal as “not an expert discussion,” but rather a continuation of foreign projects aimed at weakening what it called the Islamic Republic’s defensive arm.
Abdollah Ganji, the former managing director of the IRGC-affiliated newspaper Javan, also denounced Jomhouri-e Eslami on X, calling it “a polluted mouthpiece.”
He wrote that raising such an idea while the country faced the threat of war was, “even if it is not evidence of enemy infiltration, evidence of catastrophically flawed understanding.”
Arguments for restructuring
Not all commentary rejected the idea. The website Eghtesad 24 argued that, given the IRGC’s designation as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, some analysts viewed a merger with the regular army as a possible way to reduce legal and diplomatic pressure on Iran.
The outlet wrote that “merging the army and the IRGC could, from the perspective of reducing legal and international pressure, be worthy of consideration,” adding that such a move could reduce some of the diplomatic costs created by those designations.
It also referred to an earlier claim by IRGC commander Hassan Kazemi that the United States had demanded the dissolution of the IRGC and its integration into the regular army.
Social media reflects sharp divisions
The issue has circulated on Iranian social media for months, where hardline users have recently accused senior officials involved in negotiations, including Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and members of President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration, of trying to sideline revolutionary forces and even plotting a coup.
One X user wrote: “The final stage of the coup is dissolving the IRGC and merging the armed forces.”
Another said: “You’ll take the dream of dissolving the IRGC to your grave.”
A third argued that Kharratian’s remark alone was enough to show that “the coup plotters signed Iran’s destruction and partition long ago,” adding that dissolving the IRGC would mean disarming the Islamic Revolution and stripping it of legitimacy.
Others voiced a different concern. They argued that if a merger ever took place, it would not produce a more conventional national army, but would instead amount to the regular army being absorbed into the IRGC, turning the unified force into an ideological military organization.
A recurring debate
The idea of dissolving the IRGC or merging it with the regular army dates back to the early years of the Islamic Republic under Ruhollah Khomeini.
No merger took place. But in 1989, Iran merged the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the IRGC as part of an administrative, budgetary and logistical restructuring, while leaving the two forces institutionally separate.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces was also established to coordinate strategy, assign responsibilities and oversee the military.
Later that year, Iran’s new supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, emphasized that both the IRGC and the regular army should be preserved, and that neither should be sacrificed for the other.
Months later, he sought to settle the debate by defining the IRGC’s primary mission as defending the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic, while assigning the regular army responsibility for defending Iran’s borders.
The accusations come from the most hardline wing of Iran’s conservative camp, including the Paydari Party and supporters of Saeed Jalili, and mark the latest escalation in a long-running power struggle inside the establishment.
The US-Iran memorandum has deepened that rift, exposing a widening divide between pragmatic conservatives aligned with Ghalibaf and factions that reject any compromise with Washington.
With more conservatives moving closer to Pezeshkian’s administration, Jalili’s camp appears increasingly worried that it is being pushed to the margins.
Old rivalries flaring up
The latest controversy began Tuesday when hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian posted a blunt warning on X: “People of Iran, is a coup underway?”
Nabavian argued the Supreme Leader’s 10 conditions for negotiations had been ignored and that the memorandum with the United States had been forced through despite his objections.
A day earlier, he wrote that what officials described as the country’s interest, despite the Leader’s opposition, was “not expediency but the very essence of corruption.”
The remarks triggered a fierce conservative backlash.
Mojtaba Zarei, a Tehran lawmaker considered close to Ghalibaf, dismissed the accusation as the fantasy of the super-revolutionary camp and an election slogan aimed at rivals.
Citing reports that around 60 Paydari-affiliated lawmakers planned to stage a sit-in outside parliament, Zarei said parliament’s leadership, the Supreme National Security Council and other lawmakers had thwarted what he called an election-driven attempt by a “super-revolutionary” party to seize parliament in the style of Eastern Europe’s color revolutions.
Parliament dispute fuels tensions
Paydari lawmakers have denounced the suspension of parliamentary sessions for more than 120 days since the war began, saying the closure has stripped parliament of its oversight role at a critical moment.
Unverified social media reports suggested that security agencies pressured some legislators to drop plans for a sit-in, while separate reports claimed hardline lawmaker Hamid Rasaei was briefly detained for several hours.
Still, around a dozen lawmakers gathered outside parliament on Tuesday in protest, according to social media reports.
Rouydad24 reported that one of the group’s main aims in forcing parliament back into session is to pass legislation asserting full Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, a step that could create new obstacles for implementing the US-Iran memorandum.
'Coup' accusations dominate social media
The coup narrative has spread quickly among ultra-hardline activists on social media, where Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian are being portrayed as defying the Supreme Leader’s wishes.
One user said Ghalibaf had known the Supreme Leader’s position but “not only voted against it himself, but persuaded other commanders to do the same.”
Another described a coordinated coup project aimed at weakening revolutionary forces, promoting “begging diplomacy,” ignoring the killing of Shiites in Lebanon and turning Iran into a passive country.
The post concluded that confronting this “silent coup” required exposing those behind it, resisting surrender and returning to the path of resistance.
Security concerns ahead of Khamenei funeral
Some social media posts by supporters of the ultra-hardline faction have raised concerns that they may use the funeral of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, scheduled for July 9, to protest against the memorandum.
One ultra-hardliner activist claimed on X that "the coup is advancing; they are only waiting to assassinate the Leader," before adding: "I see no solution other than removing this government and Ghalibaf. Going to Tehran [for the funeral] is the best opportunity."
The rhetoric echoes a confrontation during this year’s Muharram ceremonies, when security forces dismantled a mourning site near the place where Ali Khamenei was killed.
The site had been occupied for three days by mostly female ultra-hardliners wearing white burial shrouds to signal readiness for death or revenge. The protesters chanted harsh slogans against officials who backed negotiations.
One participant later posted a video accusing “coup agents” of assaulting protesters and seizing their sound equipment.
The footage showed shroud-clad women chanting “Allahu Akbar” as security personnel moved to disperse them.
