“Is Iran Leaderless? Growing Doubts Shake Regime Amid War and Secret Talks”

By Passman Akpos

More than six weeks after being named Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei has yet to make a single public appearance, sparking intense speculation about his condition and raising urgent questions over who is truly in charge of the Islamic Republic at a time of existential crisis.

The 56-year-old cleric, who assumed leadership following the assassination of his father, Ali Khamenei, has remained conspicuously absent from public view. Instead, statements attributed to him are being read on state television or circulated on social media—some even delivered through reportedly AI-generated videos—fueling rumors that he may be incapacitated, in hiding, or possibly outside the country.

This silence marks a dramatic departure from the leadership style of his father, who for decades maintained a constant presence in Iran’s political life, issuing frequent speeches and direct interventions on national matters.

Conflicting reports have only deepened the mystery. A source cited by CNN claimed Mojtaba Khamenei sustained injuries—including a fractured foot and facial wounds—during the same wave of attacks that killed top Iranian commanders. Meanwhile, Reuters reported that he remains engaged in decision-making via audio conferencing, participating in high-level discussions on the war and negotiations with Washington.

Still, analysts question the extent of his authority. According to Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, Khamenei appears unable to micromanage critical decisions, with the political system instead using his name to legitimize broader strategic choices.

“The system is using him for final approval of major decisions, but not for tactical negotiations,” Vaez noted, adding that attributing positions to the absent leader provides cover for officials navigating internal criticism.

On the global stage, Donald Trump has seized on the uncertainty, claiming Iran has effectively undergone a regime shift and describing its negotiators as “very reasonable people.”

Key figures have emerged in the vacuum. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a veteran with deep military roots, has taken a leading role in negotiations with the United States, alongside Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Their presence at talks in Islamabad signaled an attempt to project unity, even as internal tensions simmer.

At home, however, the absence of a visible supreme leader has unsettled both political elites and grassroots supporters. While public rallies continue to back the regime, scrutiny is intensifying over decisions made without clear leadership endorsement.

Even routine policy moves have triggered backlash. Araghchi’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz would remain open drew criticism from hardliners who argued such decisions require direct approval from the supreme leader. State-affiliated outlets have openly questioned whether key actions are being taken without proper authority.

Iran’s President, Masoud Pezeshkian, has also faced criticism after signaling de-escalation toward regional neighbors—moves some interpret as signs of internal division.

Analysts warn that Iran is navigating a fragile and unprecedented phase. According to Hamidreza Azizi, officials are walking a “tightrope” between external pressure from Washington and a hardline domestic base that views compromise as surrender.

Meanwhile, uncertainty at the top continues to blur lines of authority. Even JD Vance recently suggested that Iranian negotiators may be seeking approval not just from the supreme leader—but possibly “someone else.”

Despite public assurances of unity, the reality appears far more complex. Behind the scenes, Iran’s political machinery is operating under a wartime improvisation—one that has elevated certain figures while leaving the ultimate question unanswered:

Who is really calling the shots in Tehran?

For now, Mojtaba Khamenei’s silence may be serving a strategic purpose. But as pressure mounts both domestically and internationally, that silence is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain—and impossible to ignore.