The Pezeshkian-Trump Agreement Has Exposed the Decision-Making Crisis Inside Iran’s Clerical Regime

The growing dispute inside the Iranian regime over the recent understanding with Washington shows that the crisis is no longer limited to the content of the agreement itself. It now reaches the very center of decision-making within the ruling establishment. From Masoud Pezeshkian’s visit to Qom to accusations of betrayal against his negotiating team and the mobilization of the Assembly of Experts and the seminary establishment, the regime appears to have entered a new phase of internal fragmentation.

Mousa Afshar, member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, stated:

“What is unfolding inside the Iranian regime over the Pezeshkian-Trump agreement shows that negotiations with Washington have not opened a path to stability. On the contrary, they have triggered deep contradictions at the top of the regime. Each faction is trying to use the agreement to settle scores with the other, while the real fear remains the impact of these divisions on the Iranian street.”

He added:

“Pezeshkian’s visit to Qom was not a routine political visit. It was an attempt to seek protection from clerical circles in the face of a broad campaign of accusations led by hardline factions. When the regime’s president is forced to deny rumors of resignation and complain that his team is being accused of hostility toward religion, the country, and the supreme leader, it means the crisis has reached deep into the ruling structure.”

Afshar said that the position of the Assembly of Experts and the campaign supporting the statement of 63 of its members reveal the level of anxiety among hardline factions.

“These factions see any understanding with Washington as a direct threat to the regime’s core pillars: the nuclear file, the Strait of Hormuz, and regional influence networks. Their insistence on so-called red lines is not about sovereignty, but about preserving the tools of the regime’s survival.”

He noted that some clerical voices in Qom defending negotiations do not represent real moderation, but rather an awareness that the regime has few options left.

“Some within the seminary understand that continued confrontation may push the regime toward collapse. That is why they speak of de-escalation and reconciliation. But such calls do not address the core crisis, because the problem is not how negotiations are managed; it is the nature of the regime itself.”

Afshar emphasized that the reported approval of the agreement by the Supreme National Security Council, including the heads of the three branches, IRGC and army commanders, and representatives of the supreme leader, proves that the decision was not personal. It was the result of a broader deadlock within the ruling system.

He concluded:

“The struggle over the agreement with Washington reflects a regime that has lost the ability to produce a unified decision. Every attempt to present the understanding as an achievement exposes it as another detonator inside a fractured power structure. Iran’s future will not be determined by factional battles in Qom and Tehran or by diplomatic maneuvers, but by the will of the Iranian people and their organized Resistance to end the velayat-e faqih regime and establish a democratic republic.”