Iran’s rulers gamble on a fragile ceasefire to sustain power through chaos - opinion

Tehran wants to ensure that no damage is inflicted on its terrorist proxy groups across the Middle East and that it always retains instruments of pressure and leverage against Israel. In the strategic logic of Islamist movements, terrorist organizations do not abandon each other in moments of danger. During this war, the regional configuration changed significantly.

In practice, the US-allied countries of the Persian Gulf realized that the regional problem would ultimately be solved by the countries of the region themselves rather than by the United States, and that in the emerging Middle East, this threat must eventually be eliminated.

The ruling establishment has dragged the entire country of Iran toward destruction and ignited war, yet it refuses to relinquish power and continues to pursue the ambition of becoming a regional power through reliance on nuclear capability and terrorism.

Contrary to many media claims, no real change has occurred within the regime in Tehran. The heads of the three branches of government – the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature – remain in place. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is a figure who emerged from the ranks of the IRGC. Masoud Pezeshkian, the so-called president, does not truly exercise decisive authority. Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei carries a long record of accusations connected to crimes against humanity.

Mojtaba Khamenei has largely disappeared from public view and is rumored to be hiding in a hospital in Qom; the public has seen little more than staged images and photographs of him. For now, it remains unclear who is actually directing the regime’s machinery. The primary instrument in the hands of the mullahs’ rulers is the IRGC.

At its head stands Ahmad Vahidi, one of the most dangerous military and intelligence figures within the regime, a man with a background tied to terrorism and a record within the command structure of the Quds Force. The Supreme National Security Council is likewise controlled by a former commander of the IRGC and intelligence figure named Zolghadr, a hardline suppressor who was once part of the Islamist terrorist group, Mansouroun.

With such figures occupying the core of power, it remains unclear how long their internal alliances will last and how long it will be before rival factions draw swords against one another over their own interests.

Accurately, US President Donald Trump has claimed that several layers of the Iranian military and intelligence command structure have already been removed from the scene and that between 15,000-20,000 strategic targets have been neutralized, possibly resulting in the elimination of tens of thousands of members of the military and security forces.

Yet the war has also revealed a deeper reality: the entire country of Iran functions as a vast and intimidating garrison. In the ideological doctrine of the ruling system, war is portrayed as a blessing – an instrument used to suppress the population and intimidate rivals.

Among many segments of society, a legitimate alternative has gradually emerged – an alternative capable of guiding the country through the collapse of the current regime and a transitional period, after which the final decision about the system of government could be determined through a national vote.

The aspiration is to travel the difficult road toward democracy through patriotism and devotion to Iran itself. To reach that goal, the people of Iran have risen repeatedly against the religious dictatorship – nineteen times in recent decades. Most recently, in January 2026, the regime unleashed massive violence against its own citizens.

According to many accounts, tens of thousands of Iranians were killed in what many observers describe as a catastrophic massacre that shocked the conscience of the nation. Even before January, as protests began to spread, the authorities shut down the internet across the country. Iran descended into darkness, suffocating censorship, and a climate of total repression. Executions have intensified, inflation has spiraled out of control, and the rising cost of living has pushed ordinary citizens into anger and desperation.

Providing artificial political life support to such a regime amounts to mocking the hopes, sacrifices, and suffering of the Iranian nation. The result is a society that is exhausted, humiliated, impoverished, angry, rebellious, deprived of opportunity, trapped in a dead end, and gradually drifting toward despair and nihilism.

Leaving such a humiliated, wounded, and discredited regime to survive in this condition is dangerous. In practice, both Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have largely abandoned the people of Iran while pursuing the elusive dream of a grand deal with Iran – a deal that appears increasingly unrealistic.

For the moment, Israel and the US are confronted with the continued survival of a dangerous regime. The strategy of the United States is open to serious criticism, and persistent ambiguity leads nowhere. The so-called “madman theory” of unpredictable pressure has also failed to produce meaningful results.

Meanwhile, the regime in Iran shamelessly mobilizes its propaganda apparatus and its network of lobbyists across Europe and the United States, loudly proclaiming victory. The war of narratives, propaganda, and the projection of triumph may dominate headlines for a short time, but such claims will settle like dust within days.

Exaggerated claims of military success have lost credibility both inside Iranian society and among many observers in the United States. Nevertheless, the regime still retains the capacity to strike, to threaten, and to inflict destruction. The situation has gradually shifted toward a war of attrition, while public opinion waits to see how events will unfold. Simply humiliating the enemy or attempting to generate fear does not offer a lasting solution.

The ceasefire appears fragile and temporary, and the overall situation remains uncertain. The Islamic Republic has shown no intention of surrendering; it is content to maneuver through propaganda and political theater. Any retreat by Israel or the United States would likely prolong the life of the regime and strengthen its ability to survive.

For the authorities in Tehran, survival itself is the primary objective: preserving the system, extending its life, and buying time. The IRGC shows little interest in compromise or negotiation and rejects genuine diplomacy. Its leadership focuses almost exclusively on preserving the interests of its own ideological structure.

The Islamic Republic functions essentially as a junta that disregards international rules and norms, while terrorism remains a central engine of its ideological project. Under such conditions, the practical benefits of compromise become highly questionable. The final outcome of this confrontation is still uncertain, and the next surprise in this geopolitical struggle has yet to appear.