Questions Arise Over Potential Talks with Iran’s Ghalibaf

A figure being considered by the Trump administration to engage with Iran is reportedly one of its most hardline representatives. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament and a former commander in the Revolutionary Guards, is seen by many experts as a loyal “yes man,” with a reputation for making threats against the U.S. and having deep connections within the regime.

This brings up a complex issue for U.S. policymakers. Even if President Trump insists they are communicating with the “right people,” could someone like Ghalibaf truly effect change in policy?

Beni Sabti, an expert on Iran at the National Security Institute, remarked that “Mr. Ghalibaf lacks an independent line,” highlighting his role as a follower rather than a leader in decision-making. “If he were told to shake hands with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, he would. Likewise, if asked to escalate tensions, he’d comply, too.” The crux of the matter, he noted, isn’t about moderation but about who holds the reins of power.

Will Opposition Parties Unite Amidst Airstrikes?

As airstrikes target Iran’s regime, the pressing question remains: can the currently fragmented opposition come together and take control if the regime falters?

Background on Ghalibaf

At 64, Ghalibaf has been entrenched in Iran’s security framework for decades. Rising through the ranks during the Iran-Iraq war, he became commander of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force. His early experience included flying training abroad, with some support reportedly from France. He also served as chief of Iran’s National Police, where he played a role in quelling protests, like the significant uprisings of 1999.

Ghalibaf has made several unsuccessful bids for the presidency but found success in local politics, serving as Tehran’s mayor for over ten years before stepping into his current parliamentary role in 2020. Throughout his career, he has consistently aligned himself with the supreme leader, refraining from establishing any independent stance.

His reputation is not without controversy; he has faced corruption allegations, including the mishandling of oil funds and involvement in a network aimed at evading sanctions. Reports even suggest that his family members are under scrutiny, having been seen making purchases of luxury items abroad.

Position on Military Actions and Talks

Ghalibaf’s statements during wartime reflect a hardened stance among Iran’s leadership. He has categorically rejected ceasefire proposals and vowed to continue hostilities, asserting that Iran will not relent until its adversaries regret any aggression. His rhetoric has also included threats of retaliation against U.S. military assets if provoked.

Just recently, he labeled reports of talks with the U.S. as “fake news,” pointing fingers at the U.S. for purportedly manipulating the market. He reiterated that confronting Iran would lead to severe repercussions for American forces, framing the current U.S. leadership as “delusional and arrogant.”

A Conduit but Not the Decider

Despite sometimes being viewed as a moderate figure within the context of Iran’s politics, Ghalibaf isn’t the ultimate decision-maker. According to Danny Citrinowicz, an expert on Middle Eastern national security and intelligence, Ghalibaf could serve as a liaison to Iran’s leadership, but he doesn’t wield final authority. “If you want to engage with someone in Iran, he’s probably your best contact. But any action would require clearance from the Revolutionary Guards and top leadership,” he explained.

Some may interpret his past alignment with moderate policies during Rouhani’s presidency as a sign of moderation, but Sabti cautions against that view, suggesting it’s misleading.

System Challenges

Analysts emphasize that the primary issue lies not solely with Ghalibaf but rather with the broader system he operates within. Underestimating the influence of the Revolutionary Guards and similar entities can lead to a skewed understanding of Iran’s power dynamics.

Today’s political structure is more decentralized and radical, complicating negotiations even further. “It’s not a single entity; it involves multiple factions that must coordinate,” Citrinowicz notes. “While an agreement isn’t off the table, it would be exceedingly difficult to align on the U.S.’s pre-war demands.”

From Iran’s perspective, they believe they hold the upper hand. They leverage strategic capabilities to threaten crucial global passageways like the Strait of Hormuz. This stance, ironically, might intensify internal radicalization, shifting the onus of negotiations onto the U.S., rather than the reverse.

Even if negotiations were conceivable, Ghalibaf cannot act independently but would require consensus from key players in the regime.