Fresh divisions within Iran’s leadership have reportedly stalled plans to send a negotiating delegation to Islamabad for talks with the United States aimed at ending the eight-week-old conflict, raising deeper questions about who truly holds decision-making authority in Tehran. The delay has highlighted internal tensions and competing centres of power within the Iranian system at a time when diplomatic momentum was already fragile.
According to reports, an Iranian delegation had been prepared and was ready to travel to Islamabad for discussions with US officials. However, at the final stage, the plan was blocked due to disagreements between allies of President Masoud Pezeshkian and figures associated with the office of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. Sources indicated that a last-minute message from Khamenei’s inner circle rejected any discussion on nuclear issues and criticised the foreign ministry’s earlier negotiation efforts, effectively halting the process.
Under these conditions, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly argued that attending the talks would be pointless, as there would be no scope for meaningful progress if key topics such as nuclear policy were off the table. This internal disagreement not only disrupted immediate plans but also reflected broader tensions between different factions within Iran’s political and security structure.
The cancellation of the delegation came amid expectations that a US team led by Vice President JD Vance might travel to Islamabad for renewed negotiations. However, his visit was also put on hold, further adding to uncertainty. At the same time, US President Donald Trump extended the ceasefire period, stating that more time was required for Iran to clarify its position and respond to ongoing diplomatic efforts.
Trump himself pointed to the internal divisions within Iran, suggesting that the country was struggling to determine clear leadership due to infighting between hardliners and moderates. His remarks brought additional attention to the internal dynamics of Iran’s governance, although developments on the ground suggest that rather than fragmentation, authority may actually be consolidating within a powerful security-oriented network.
Recent developments indicate growing influence of a tightly coordinated group involving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Supreme National Security Council, and senior political figures aligned with Iran’s security establishment. Individuals such as IRGC chief Ahmad Vahidi and security official Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr are increasingly seen as key players shaping the country’s strategic decisions, particularly in matters related to negotiations and military posture.
This shift became evident after the first round of talks in Islamabad, where Araghchi had suggested that the Strait of Hormuz could remain open and hinted at some flexibility on issues like nuclear enrichment and regional alliances. However, those remarks were later criticised by state-backed media, which argued that such statements could give political leverage to the United States. Shortly afterward, Iran’s armed forces announced that the Strait would be closed again, citing the continued US naval presence, signalling a reversal of the earlier diplomatic tone.
The situation has also been complicated by incidents on the ground, including the firing on two India-flagged ships, which exposed potential inconsistencies in Iran’s internal decision-making and command structure. These developments have reinforced the perception that multiple power centres are influencing policy, sometimes in conflicting ways.
Meanwhile, Iran’s state broadcaster denied that any delegation had travelled to Islamabad, dismissing reports of a planned visit altogether. This further added to the confusion surrounding the status of negotiations and reflected the lack of a unified public stance.
On the US side, Trump continued to issue warnings, stating that Iranian energy infrastructure could be targeted if negotiations fail. He also referenced earlier military operations, claiming significant damage to Iran’s nuclear-related facilities, while reiterating that the naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz would remain in place until a deal is reached.
Iranian leaders responded strongly to this rhetoric. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accused Washington of attempting to force Iran into surrender through pressure tactics and insisted that Tehran would not negotiate under such conditions. He also warned that Iran had prepared new strategic options, signalling readiness to escalate if necessary.
As uncertainty continues to surround the possibility of renewed talks in Islamabad, the situation underscores the complexity of Iran’s internal power structure. Competing factions, military influence, and political calculations are all shaping the country’s approach, making it increasingly difficult to revive negotiations in an environment marked by pressure, mistrust, and ongoing regional tensions.
