On Friday, indirect negotiations between the U.S. and Iran commenced in Oman. However, Vice President J.D. Vance raised a notable point earlier in the week, questioning the absence of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei from these talks. His absence underscores a challenge for the U.S.: the key decision-maker in Tehran isn’t present at the negotiating table.
Vance remarked, “It’s pretty odd to engage in diplomacy with a country when you can’t even talk to its leader. It complicates matters tremendously. It’s just bizarre.” He shared these thoughts during an interview on Megyn Kelly’s podcast.
Khamenei’s Unique Position
Ali Khamenei, now 86, has been the supreme leader of Iran since 1989. He holds unparalleled authority over military, security, and strategic decisions, which indicates that any diplomatic success will need his approval.
Sina Azodi, who runs the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University, explained that Khamenei’s control over Iran’s fundamental power centers bolsters his position. “He’s immensely powerful; he commands the military and appoints heads of the Revolutionary Guards, the regular army, the judiciary—key institutions.”
Azodi further highlighted that the hierarchical nature of Iran’s political structure is partly why Khamenei doesn’t engage in negotiations. He emphasized, “Iranians are rigid about diplomatic protocol. There’s no equivalent status anywhere else; Khamenei’s rank isn’t matched by that of foreign leaders.” He noted that when a head of state visits, only the Iranian flag is displayed, which reinforces their stance.
According to an Iranian official familiar with the situation, Khamenei’s mindset seems focused on legacy. “He believes that opposing the U.S. will shape how history remembers him, and he thinks Iran can strike back at U.S. interests regionally. His focus appears to be on maintaining that legacy, rather than on personal safety,” the official, who chose to remain anonymous, informed.
Benam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, remarked that Khamenei is still a pivotal figure within Iran’s regime, despite facing mounting pressures from both inside and outside the country. “He holds significant sway but possesses the greatest power of veto within Iran’s political scene,” he noted.
He described Iran’s approach as a balancing act, aiming to raise the cost of war while signaling to adversaries a willingness to engage in talks. However, he cautioned that a regime perceived as fearful and weak could still pose significant risks, arguing that Iranian leaders might think threatening U.S. assets could help deter further conflict.
Looking into Khamenei’s thoughts, Azodi speculated that he views current tensions as a continuation of previous conflicts. “He likely perceives U.S. actions as an attempt at regime change and believes that resisting this is crucial,” he suggested.
Reports from journalists within Iran suggest that public sentiment toward Khamenei is shifting, with some expressing a strong desire for his end. One journalist relayed how pervasive the sentiment is, asking, “Why doesn’t he just die?” This frustration seems to stem from widespread disillusionment with the political system.
Another reporter mentioned that there’s a feeling among Iranians that real political change is unlikely, and many are looking toward generational shifts for true progress.
Mehdi Ghadimi, a journalist in exile, painted a somber picture of Iran’s leadership dynamics. He suggested that Islamic governments view their leaders as divinely appointed, creating a chasm between them and foreign leaders they see as enemies. “This belief processes why Khamenei never meets with foreign heads,” he explained.
He added that even efforts that might be branded as ‘moderate’ within Iran are typically strategic moves designed to engage with the West while ultimately serving Khamenei’s interests.
These discussions have emerged in a context of escalating regional tensions, U.S. military movements, and ongoing disputes about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Analysts affirm that the primary issue remains unchanged: negotiations can occur, but the decisive voice is still Khamenei’s, influenced by a lifetime defined by conflict with the U.S. and a commitment to sustaining his regime.
