Hormuz 'splits' Tehran: How did Iranian factions divide over the Strait of Hormuz card?

Increasing indicators suggest escalating disagreements within Iran's leadership over managing confrontation with the United States, amid reports that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei is seeking to limit President Masoud Pezeshkian's influence on strategic matters, including the future of the Strait of Hormuz and the possibility of resuming talks with Washington.

Despite continued official rhetoric portraying unity among state institutions during the war, statements circulating from figures close to power centers have highlighted a rift between the pragmatic and hardline factions over how to use Iran's leverage cards, foremost among them the Strait of Hormuz.

Warning of resignation

Iranian cleric Mohammad Bagher Kharaazi, who is related to the Supreme Leader, sparked controversy after claiming that Mojtaba Khamenei informed President Masoud Pezeshkian he would accept his resignation if he threatened it again—referring to reports about the president using the threat of resignation as leverage within the system.

The Iranian government has not confirmed this narrative, nor has any official comment been issued from the Supreme Leader’s office regarding it.

Nevertheless, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) considered that if true, this message might reflect an attempt to prevent Pezeshkian from influencing state decisions during a sensitive phase of the conflict with the United States.

Previous reports indicated that Pezeshkian had threatened resignation more than once, while Iranian authorities denied in May of last year the claims that he had submitted a formal resignation.

Disagreement over Hormuz and negotiating with Washington

Experts argue that the core of the disagreement is not over Iran’s strategic objectives, but rather over the methods to achieve them.

Pezeshkian is classified among the pragmatic faction within Iran’s establishment, alongside Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. This faction favors using military pressure and regional influence cards as negotiation tools to reach a settlement with the United States, rather than pursuing an open confrontation.

In contrast, the hardline faction pushes for continued escalation and rejects any negotiations with Washington, advocating for expanding the use of pressure instruments, foremost among them the Strait of Hormuz.

This division is reinforced by statements from former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who warned that closing the Strait of Hormuz or overusing it could lead to international consensus against Iran and potentially harm its relations with key partners such as China.

Leverage card and a double-edged sword

The Strait of Hormuz represents one of Iran’s most critical economic and military leverage tools, connecting the Arabian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, through which a significant portion of global maritime oil and gas exports pass.

Teheran does not need to fully close the strait to exert pressure; it can raise navigation costs by intensifying inspections, imposing security restrictions, or threatening shipping movements—giving it a powerful bargaining chip against the United States and its allies.

Yet this card also carries substantial risks for Iran itself, as prolonged disruptions could damage Iranian oil exports, disrupt imports, destabilize regional economies, and harm Tehran’s trade relations with major Asian partners such as China and India.

Power struggle within the system

Analysts believe that if the warning attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei is verified, it may reflect an effort to weaken one of the few remaining leverage tools available to Pezeshkian, as competing power centers within the system vie to shape Iran’s policy toward the United States and manage the Strait of Hormuz file.

However, this assessment remains based solely on statements by Mohammad Bagher Kharaazi, not on an official declaration from the Supreme Leader or Iranian state institutions—making claims of such a large-scale internal conflict uncertain for now, despite growing evidence of diverging views between the pragmatic and hardline factions within Iran’s leadership.