Mission impossible: will Washington be able to change power in Iran
Washington is discussing possible candidates for the role of Iran's future leader. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a politician associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and known for harsh rhetoric against the United States, is considered among them. Earlier, he warned of the readiness to "irrevocably destroy" the energy infrastructure of the region in response to attacks on facilities of the Islamic Republic. What is behind the search for a new political figure in Iran and whether a change of power is possible — in the Izvestia article.
A promising option
The war in Iran has been going on for the third week now. During this time, the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz began to bring Tehran about $ 2 million per voyage, and the American stock market lost about $1 trillion in capitalization. So far, these consequences look like the main results of Operation Epic Fury. Washington has failed to achieve its key goal of changing power in the Islamic Republic.
According to Western media, the White House has begun discussing diplomatic scenarios for resolving the conflict. The main idea is to implement the so—called "Venezuelan scenario" - the coming to power of a politician who enjoys domestic support and at the same time loyal to the United States.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is named among such candidates. The politician has a military background: he is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war and a former commander of the IRGC Air Force. According to Politico, he is seen in Washington as a pragmatic manager and potential negotiator.
"He is one of the most promising options. He is one of the most influential... But we need to check them, and we can't rush it," one of the officials said.
At the same time, a number of publications report that the American side has allegedly already attempted to establish contact with Ghalibaf. US President Donald Trump announced successful negotiations with representatives of Tehran, which resulted in the suspension of strikes on the republic's energy infrastructure for five days. According to media reports, Ghalibaf could be the Iranian negotiator.
The politician himself categorically denies any contacts with the American side. "No negotiations have been held with the United States, and fake news is being used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and get out of the quagmire in which the United States and Israel find themselves," he said.
There is no final decision on his candidacy yet: the presidential administration is conducting a kind of "stress test" of several potential figures at once. The son of the last Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, was not among them — Donald Trump's entourage believes that he does not have sufficient legitimacy inside the country.
The search for a leader
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is considered one of the most influential figures in Iran. In 2005, he ran for president, but failed to gain the support of the majority of voters and soon became head of the Tehran administration. He served two consecutive terms as mayor of the capital. Since 2020, the politician has held the position of Chairman of the Iranian Parliament.
Chairman of the Iranian Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf
His influence is largely due to his proximity to General Qassem Soleimani, who was eliminated by the United States during the previous presidential term of Donald Trump. Soleimani was considered a key architect of Iran's regional security strategy and was highly trusted by the IRGC.
According to an expert from the Russian Council on International Affairs (RIAC) Anton Mardasov, during his time as mayor of Tehran, Ghalibaf proved himself to be a hardliner, including in the suppression of protests. At the same time, he used his connections in the IRGC to defend himself against corruption charges.
— However, for the United States, Ghalibaf can be seen as a compromise figure — not only as a symbolic renewal of the Iranian political elite, but also as a real negotiator with influence in the government system and connections in the IRGC. Washington may also take into account his political ambitions, which have not been realized before," the Izvestia interlocutor notes.
At the same time, as political analyst Ilgar Velizade points out, diplomatic channels between the United States and Iran were probably maintained earlier. In this context, attention to the figures really involved in the decision-making process, including the Speaker of Parliament, seems logical.
— It is believed that in recent years, a narrow circle of leaders has formed in Iran, influencing key political and military decisions. In these circumstances, Ghalibaf can be considered as one of the participants in the informal center of power. At the same time, possible negotiating contacts remain non-public due to the lack of specific agreements. Trump is often ahead of the curve in his statements, which may be due to both the peculiarities of the American political system and internal pressure on the administration amid criticism of the war and falling ratings of the president, the expert emphasizes.
An operation with no clear result
Today, the main issue remains the stability of the Iranian elite. According to Anton Mardasov, this is what the special services of various countries primarily pay attention to. But it has its own peculiarities. The traditional division of Iranian political forces into hardliners and reformers has already lost its meaning.
— In practice, representatives of the so-called reform camp may take a no less harsh position on a number of issues than politicians who are considered to be "hawks". Moreover, previous classifications, such as the Islamic left or the modernist right, increasingly turn out to be conditional in war conditions," the expert explains.
According to him, informal influence groups operate within Iran's political system, religious institutions and law enforcement agencies. They can be conditionally called "semi-opposition": they do not openly oppose the government, but they are able to distance themselves from individual decisions and form alternative positions.
Despite the existence of various centers of influence, there is still no serious split in the system of power, Ilgar Velizade points out.
— Expensive operations lead to the elimination of some managers, but others, often more cautious, take their place. This increases the cost of the campaign, complicates its implementation, and delays deadlines. It could be a military operation that could take months. And this will inevitably affect the global economy and political processes," the political scientist warns.
That is why, in all likelihood, the United States is forced to look for negotiating options in order to at least partially end the active phase of the conflict. But the chances of success are almost zero.
"There will be no change of power today with this approach,— Velizade emphasizes. — The stakes remain extremely high, but it is premature to say that current contacts will lead to the end of the war. The level of mutual trust between the parties remains extremely low — in fact, it can be considered non-existent.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
