Understanding Iran's Political Structure
According to political analyst Ilia Kusa, the Trump administration made a critical error by betting on the rapid collapse of Iran's regime. Kusa argues that Iran's political system is far from fragile—it is complex, decentralized, and internally competitive, with clearly defined negotiating channels and elite factions. Tehran was prepared for comprehensive talks, but Washington opted for a coercive strategy instead. This choice, the analyst contends, reveals serious gaps in U.S. intelligence and policy analysis.
The Trump team expected a swift downfall of Iran's leadership. Yet Kusa points out that the country's political landscape is actually quite sophisticated and fiercely competitive, featuring multiple elite groups that constantly vie for influence and power.
“Iran’s political system is highly developed, decentralized, and intensely competitive from within,” noted Ilia Kusa.
Iran's elite can be broadly categorized into three main factions:
- Nationalist conservatives
- Religious conservatives
- Liberal reformers
During the standoff with the United States, nationalist conservatives seized control and are now running the country.
On the Iranian side, the negotiation track is led by the speaker of parliament, a representative of the Supreme National Security Council (similar to Ukraine's NSDC), and the foreign minister—who has always been and remains the primary communicator. Kusa emphasized that several individuals are currently steering Iran's negotiating efforts, and they are prepared for deep, substantive dialogue, having approached the talks with a comprehensive strategy.
“It seems the Trump administration never fully grasped—and still doesn’t—how Iran’s political system actually works,” the analyst remarked.
The top brass of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps belongs to the nationalist-conservative wing of Iranian politics, for whom national pride and sovereignty are paramount.
The situation in Iran thus highlights the complexity of its political landscape, where various elite groups pursue their own interests and exert distinct influences. Kusa concluded that the existence of multiple elite factions with divergent views likely led Trump to dismiss the system as chaotic. He drew a parallel to U.S. political realities, noting that competition among elites is a normal state of affairs in any country.
Kusa’s analysis of Iran’s political regime and the Trump administration’s missteps underscores the critical need to understand the intricate political dynamics at play in Tehran. The miscalculation of the regime’s durability pushed Washington toward a confrontational approach, ultimately undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts. This case illustrates just how vital it is for state institutions to develop a deep grasp of other nations’ internal politics and social mechanisms in order to conduct effective foreign policy.
Understanding the complexities of Iran's political landscape is essential for grasping the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy. For a closer look at why attempts to destabilize Iran using strategies that worked in Syria are unlikely to succeed, explore the key reasons outlined in our detailed analysis here.