As Iran's leadership faces backlash over a truce with the US, hardliners warn of a potential coup, accusing officials of betraying revolutionary ideals.
Washington DC, United States Jul 18, 2026 ALN: As Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian walked alongside the coffin of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Tehran last week, some of the black-clad mourners surrounding him chanted not in tribute to the late leader, but directly at him – “death to the compromiser.” This stark display of dissent highlights the growing rift within Iran's political landscape, particularly among its hardline factions, as the nation grapples with the aftermath of Khamenei's death and the uncertain future of its leadership.
Not far from that site, Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s top diplomat who negotiated a ceasefire with the Trump administration and lifted some sanctions on the Islamic Republic, was forced to flee the funeral after a mob pelted him with rocks amid death chants accusing him of being a “traitorous sellout.” The hostility directed at top officials during the funeral reflects a theory that has been gaining traction within the Islamic Republic’s most radical factions for months: that Iran’s wartime leaders who negotiated and signed the agreement with Washington are staging a soft coup against the Islamic Republic and its revolutionary ideals while the new supreme leader remains largely invisible for fear of his life – or, as some have suggested, because he is incapacitated.
The hardline factions that attended the funeral in large numbers believe that instead of avenging Khamenei’s killing, Iranian officials have surrendered by signing an agreement that defies the orders of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, the late leader’s son and successor. However, Mojtaba has remained hidden from public view, neither addressing the nation directly nor visibly asserting his authority, even as officials negotiate or govern in his name. This absence has created a power vacuum that various factions are eager to exploit.
Hardliners have accused Iran’s visible leadership – those running and representing the country as Khamenei remains in hiding – of plotting to consolidate power by suspending parliament, defying his orders in negotiations, and attempting to disperse the nightly street rallies that had become a potent power base for fundamentalists. The tension is palpable, as factions within the government vie for control over the narrative and direction of the country.
“Warning to the people of Iran: Is a coup on the way??” Mahmoud Nabavian, an outspoken radical lawmaker, asked on X days before Khamenei’s funeral. His rhetoric reflects a broader sentiment among hardliners who perceive any deviation from their hardline stance as a betrayal of the Islamic Revolution’s core values. “In these moments of farewell to the martyred Imam (Khamenei), we raise the banner of vengeance for his blood and stand firm against the coup,” he wrote days later, further solidifying the hardliners' narrative that they are the true custodians of the revolution.
In Mojtaba’s absence, chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Pezeshkian, and Araghchi have become the most visible faces in charge of post-war Iran. Without access to the new supreme leader, hardliners who are unhappy with their performance have instead accused them of plotting a coup. Arash Azizi, a US-based Iran expert and author of the book “What Iranians Want,” explained this dynamic, stating, “Mojtaba’s continued absence means that they don’t have access to him and also that Ghalibaf and allies are effectively in charge of the country… the ultra-hardliners have thus accused Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian of plotting a ‘coup’ against Mojtaba.”
Despite widespread calls for wartime unity across Iran, the weeklong grand funeral for Khamenei, who was killed in late February in Israeli airstrikes coordinated with the United States, became a powerful showcase for the Islamic Republic’s most hardline supporters. They used the occasion to amplify demands to avenge their leader through renewed war with Washington and to declare their rejection of any agreement with Trump. This sentiment underscores the complex interplay between domestic politics and foreign policy, as hardliners seek to leverage Khamenei's death to galvanize support for a more aggressive stance against perceived enemies.
Their wish now appears to have been fulfilled. A fragile ceasefire between Iran and the US all but collapsed this week after the Revolutionary Guards launched attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz to assert control over the waterway. This escalation prompted retaliatory strikes by Washington and fresh demands by Iranian hardliners to scrap the truce, illustrating how quickly the situation can deteriorate amid internal political strife.
In the weeks leading up to the renewed hostilities, hardliners turned their fury on the leaders who signed the deal with the US. “Mr President, if the leader’s conditions are not fulfilled, then it will be us, the blade and your throat,” Mohammad Ali Bakhshi, a security-linked “Maddah” – or religious singer loyal to the Iranian regime – warned Pezeshkian during a ceremony. “We will bring hell upon you.” Such open threats to kill the president are alarming, yet Bakhshi is not known to have faced any legal repercussions, indicating a troubling trend where radical rhetoric is tolerated, if not encouraged, within certain circles of Iranian society.
Other officials under hardline scrutiny include Iran’s chief negotiator with the US, Ghalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander with deep political experience whose credentials enabled him to step up and take charge during the war, emerging as the regime’s de-facto lead operator with broad acceptability. His position places him at the center of the ongoing power struggle, as he navigates the treacherous waters of both domestic dissent and international diplomacy.
“They are trying to elevate the role of the Supreme Council for National Security while diminishing the role of the supreme leader and parliament,” Kamran Ghazanfari, a hardline parliamentarian, said in a video statement early July, referring to the council now deciding the country’s most sensitive wartime affairs. “This is the political coup they have designed and are carrying out step by step.” The implications of this shift could be profound, as it challenges the established hierarchy and could lead to a reconfiguration of power dynamics within the Iranian government.
Sidelining the radicals is another tactic employed by those in power. On Tuesday, Nabavian, the hardline lawmaker who fiercely opposes the agreement and has been one of the leading voices warning of a “coup,” was removed from his position on the parliament’s National Security Commission, along with another parliamentarian critical of the deal. This move signals a potential consolidation of power among those who support the negotiations and seek to stabilize the country amidst growing external threats and internal dissent.
Nabavian, who was part of Iran’s negotiating delegation before turning against the talks, attempted to derail the agreement by leaking the text to the media before it was signed last month. His actions exemplify the lengths to which hardliners are willing to go to undermine any semblance of compromise with the West. He claimed that Iran’s negotiating team were defying the supreme leader’s red lines in their talks with the US, a sentiment echoed by many within the hardline camp who view any form of diplomacy as a betrayal of the revolution.
He and others echo the views of “Jebhe-ye Paydari” (the Endurance Front), whose hardline members are often described by observers as “Super Revolutionaries.” They see themselves as the guardians of the values of the 1979 revolution that overthrew the pro-Western monarch and established an Islamic theocracy. This self-identification as protectors of the revolution not only justifies their radical positions but also galvanizes support among segments of the Iranian populace who feel disenfranchised by the current leadership's more moderate approaches.
The ongoing tensions within Iran’s political landscape reveal a nation at a crossroads, grappling with the legacy of its past and the uncertain future that lies ahead. As hardliners and moderates clash over the direction of the country, the implications extend beyond Iran's borders, influencing regional stability and international relations. The struggle for power within Iran is emblematic of a broader contest between revolutionary ideals and the pragmatic realities of governance in a rapidly changing world.
To learn more about the latest developments in Political Controversies, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
