A fresh political rift appears to be unfolding within Iran’s leadership, as President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf are reportedly seeking the removal of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The move comes amid allegations that Araghchi has been acting under the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) rather than following the direction of the elected government. Sources familiar with the matter claim that the foreign minister has been operating independently of the presidency, raising serious concerns at the highest levels of Iran’s executive leadership.

According to the report, Araghchi has in recent weeks acted less like a cabinet minister carrying out government policy and more like an aide to Ahmad Vahidi, who is identified as the commander of the IRGC. Sources allege that Araghchi maintained close coordination with Vahidi, particularly during sensitive nuclear negotiations. It is further claimed that he followed directives from the IRGC leadership without properly informing or consulting President Pezeshkian. This alleged sidelining of the presidency has triggered dissatisfaction within the government.

The situation has reportedly led to growing frustration for President Pezeshkian. Sources indicate that he has privately told close associates that he may dismiss Araghchi if the current pattern continues. This reflects a deeper concern about the balance of power within Iran’s political system, especially during a period marked by conflict and economic challenges.

The tensions come at a time when divisions are already widening between Iran’s political leadership and its powerful military establishment. Earlier reports had highlighted serious disagreements between President Pezeshkian and Ahmad Vahidi regarding the management of the ongoing conflict and its impact on the country’s economy and public welfare. These disagreements appear to have deepened, with governance issues now spilling into foreign policy and diplomatic efforts.

Sources from previous reports stated that the president had expressed frustration at being placed in a “complete political deadlock” and had struggled to assert control over key government decisions. The same sources indicated that Vahidi had argued that, due to wartime conditions, sensitive managerial positions should remain under the direct control of the Revolutionary Guards. This difference in approach has contributed to the growing friction between civilian leadership and military authorities.

The internal conflict is also said to have affected Iran’s diplomatic engagement with the United States. According to informed sources, disagreements within Iran’s negotiating team played a role in the country’s withdrawal from talks held in mid-April. This has raised concerns about the effectiveness and unity of Iran’s diplomatic strategy at a time when international negotiations are critical.

Araghchi’s role in these negotiations has drawn particular scrutiny. He was reportedly more flexible during discussions, especially on issues such as reducing Iran’s financial and military support to regional allies like Hezbollah. This stance is said to have provoked a strong reaction from senior security officials, including Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, who serves as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. His response reflects the sensitivity of these issues within Iran’s security establishment.

The United States also took note of the absence of a unified negotiating position. US Vice President JD Vance stated that the American delegation believed the Iranian team lacked the authority to finalise any agreement without approval from higher leadership in Tehran. This observation underscores the internal divisions within Iran and raises questions about who ultimately controls the country’s foreign policy decisions.

Tensions have also emerged over the leadership of Iran’s negotiating team. In earlier rounds of talks, including discussions held in Islamabad, Ghalibaf had taken a leading role. However, some hardline lawmakers chose not to publicly support the team, despite broader backing from parliament. This lack of consensus highlights the political complexity surrounding Iran’s diplomatic efforts.

Sources suggest that Ghalibaf may have stepped back from his role after facing criticism, particularly over attempts to include nuclear energy issues in the negotiations. Following this shift, Araghchi reportedly sought to take on a more prominent position within the negotiating team. This move may have further contributed to the tensions now visible within Iran’s leadership.

Araghchi later travelled to Islamabad on April 24 to present Tehran’s proposal during the talks. However, according to media reports, the proposal was rejected by the US president. This development marked another setback in efforts to revive diplomatic engagement between the two countries.

Despite these reports, there has been no official confirmation regarding any move to remove Araghchi from his position. However, the situation points to growing internal challenges within Iran’s leadership. The reported tensions reflect deeper structural issues related to authority, decision-making, and the relationship between civilian and military institutions.

The unfolding developments suggest that Iran’s leadership is facing a critical moment. The combination of political disagreements, economic pressures, and stalled international negotiations is putting significant strain on the system. As these internal divisions become more visible, they may have broader implications for Iran’s domestic stability and its role on the global stage.