follow us:
A significant standoff has emerged between Iran's newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian and hardliners within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. As the Iranian government grapples with its response to this incident, divisions have surfaced regarding how to retaliate against Israel.
A significant standoff has emerged between Iran’s newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian and hardliners within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. As the Iranian government grapples with its response to this incident, divisions have surfaced regarding how to retaliate against Israel.
The IRGC is advocating for a direct missile strike on major Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv, as a show of force. In contrast, President Pezeshkian, who took office shortly before the assassination, is pushing for a more calculated approach. He suggests targeting alleged Mossad bases outside Israel, particularly in neighboring regions like Azerbaijan and Iraqi Kurdistan. This strategy, he argues, would reduce the risk of escalating into a full-scale war, which he believes could have dire consequences for Iran.
A close aide to Pezeshkian revealed that the president is concerned about the severe repercussions of a direct attack on Israel, stating, “Pezeshkian fears that any direct attack on Israel would have serious consequences.” The president has also indicated the importance of notifying Azerbaijan and Iraqi Kurdistan prior to any military actions on their territories.
Despite Pezeshkian’s efforts to avoid confrontation, the IRGC, which has historically wielded significant power in Iranian politics, appears to be undermining his authority. An IRGC official dismissed the president’s restrained approach, emphasizing that their primary goal remains to strike Tel Aviv in coordination with Hezbollah and other allies. Esmail Qaani, commander of the IRGC’s elite Quds Force, has also expressed strong support for immediate retaliation against Israel.
Pezeshkian’s challenges are compounded by the IRGC’s loyalty to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which complicates his ability to assert control over military decisions. According to sources, the IRGC’s push for a more aggressive response may be aimed at undermining Pezeshkian’s nascent presidency rather than solely addressing the perceived humiliation from Haniyeh’s assassination.
In a recent meeting with Khamenei, Pezeshkian urged restraint, warning that a direct attack could destabilize his administration and lead to severe economic repercussions. He emphasized that initiating a conflict with Israel would hinder Iran’s recovery and worsen the already strained relationship between the government and its citizens.
While Pezeshkian publicly affirms Iran’s right to respond to Israel, he has refrained from using inflammatory rhetoric, opting instead for a more diplomatic stance in discussions with world leaders. He has made it clear that he will not publicly challenge Khamenei’s policies, despite the internal pressures he faces.
As tensions rise, the outcome of this power struggle between Pezeshkian and the IRGC will significantly impact Iran’s foreign policy and its approach to the ongoing conflict with Israel. The coming weeks will be crucial as Pezeshkian navigates these challenges while seeking to maintain stability within his administration and the country at large.
