Araqchi "Stuck" Between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Presidency.. Who Negotiates on Behalf of Iran?

Recent leaks have pushed the issue of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi into the heart of the conflict within Tehran, after reports of President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf seeking his removal due to accusations of following Ahmad Vahidi's directives in the negotiation process, without actual coordination with the presidency.

These leaks place Araqchi's issue on a path that goes beyond replacing a minister or modifying a negotiating team, as the man has moved in an area where war management intersects with post-escalation negotiation and the competition between power centers within the regime, according to observers.

Distributing the Cost of War Within the Authority

While the push towards Araqchi's dismissal reveals the regime's method of managing the cost of major confrontations, as it shifts pressure to executive figures who appeared at the forefront of decision-making, and thereby opens a limited accountability path that controls losses within the ruling class.

Thus, Araqchi enters this path from his position at the diplomatic forefront during a sensitive phase, and from the nature of the accusation that directly impacts the relationship between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Revolutionary Guard.

While his potential removal pushes the regime to distribute the responsibility for the war within its ruling class, the presidency wants to distance itself from the open mandate given to the Guard in negotiations, the parliament is trying to protect its position after the confusion of Ghalibaf's role, and the Guard is working to solidify its image as a controlling force within a process exhausted by war and complicated by negotiations.

These calculations converge around Araqchi, opening the possibility of a series of calculated removals and political pressure aimed at keeping losses within limits that the regime can contain.

Negotiating Under the Guard's Ceiling

The crisis reveals a rift within the war and negotiation circle, because the dispute has reached the body that determines the ceiling of confrontation with Washington and decides the limits of engaging in nuclear and missile files.

A joint report by the "Critical Threats Project" and the "Institute for the Study of War" showed that Vahidi and his circle sought to restrict the authority of the team led by Ghalibaf, by introducing Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, into the negotiation process, and controlling the ceiling related to the nuclear and missile programs.

These facts link Araqchi's crisis to the conflict over authorization within Tehran. Ghalibaf faced reprimand after attempting to introduce the nuclear file into talks with Washington, and then reports spoke of his departure from the head of the negotiating team, making Araqchi's crisis part of a broader struggle over negotiation terms and the limits of approaching files that the Guard places within its security scope.

Recent events also suggest the shift of the center of gravity within the regime to the security and military sphere. Tehran maintains its political institutions and manages the formal aspect of governance through them, while decisive decisions move through the Revolutionary Guard, the Supreme National Security Council, and Vahidi's surrounding circle, thus reducing the government's ability to control the process, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs operates as a negotiation channel under a strict security ceiling.

Hormuz Pressure and the Rise of Security Decisions

Araqchi's crisis coincided with escalating negotiating and field pressure. The foreign minister was present in Oman contacts days ago, discussing the security of the Strait of Hormuz and efforts to end the war. Then, leaks of his removal emerged while the strait crisis continued to raise the cost of confrontation for the global economy and Tehran's negotiating position.

This coincidence gives the internal dispute its political weight, as the conflict around Araqchi moves within a timing where war pressures the regime from outside and inside, and decision-making centers are pushed to solidify their positions before any new path with Washington

Meanwhile, masked military rule advances through this mechanism, as the Guard dictates the pace of decision-making by setting the ceiling for negotiations, monitoring the movement of ministers, and readjusting delegations when security limits are exceeded. "Reuters" reported in March that the Revolutionary Guard had tightened its grip on war decisions and pushed for a tougher strategy despite the loss of prominent leaders, and Araqchi's crisis is a direct extension of this path within the negotiation file.

The Security Veto and Post-War Calculations

Araqchi's crisis reveals the position of the veto within the regime through the movement of parties around it. The presidency seeks to restore its authority after accusing the foreign minister of overstepping it, the parliament is trying to regain Ghalibaf's influence after the confusion of his role in the negotiation process, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs bears the cost of operating under a ceiling drawn by the security circle.

Meanwhile, the Guard retains the broader ability to control the process, define its limits, and exclude those who exceed them, thus transforming the veto from a written prerogative into an actual authority that determines negotiation files and places political flexibility under direct security supervision.

Araqchi's crisis reaches the heart of the regime because it combines accountability, negotiation, and the security veto in one path. His removal grants the presidency and parliament an opportunity to present a limited internal correction, while his continued presence proves the Guard's ability to protect its line within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Both cases reveal Tehran's beginning to manage the cost of war within its political house, as the issue transformed from a dispute over a minister who lost part of his political cover to a test of the government's position before the Guard, and the extent of political institutions' ability to reclaim negotiation decisions from the security circle that emerged from the war with a broader presence within the structure of governance.