Analysts caution that Iran’s ceasefire effort may constitute a ‘deceptive cycle’ as a shadowy figure rises in power.

(SeaPRwire) –   On Wednesday, President Donald Trump indicated that Iran might be pursuing a ceasefire, though observers argue that true authority remains with hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members, specifically the newly prominent Commander Ahmad Vahidi.

While Trump did not specify the individual, his remarks appeared to target President Masoud Pezeshkian. Trump posted that Iran’s new leader, whom he described as more intelligent and less radical than previous ones, had requested a ceasefire. Trump noted the U.S. would only consider this once the Strait of Hormuz is fully open, threatening to otherwise return Iran to the “Stone Ages.”

Analysts warn, however, that the Iranian president does not have the final say on matters of military engagement.

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Digital that Pezeshkian does not possess the power to initiate or terminate a major war with the U.S.

Instead, experts suggest that actual control is held by high-ranking IRGC-linked figures like Vahidi, Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and security official Mohammad Zolghadr, who function within interconnected power structures.

Much focus is now on Vahidi, a veteran IRGC commander viewed as a radical strategist whose return to the spotlight signals a transition within the Iranian leadership.

Beni Sabti, an Iran specialist at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies, cautioned that Iran’s use of the term “ceasefire” may differ from Western definitions.

He referenced the concept of “hudna,” a deceptive truce used to rebuild strength during periods of weakness before resuming attacks against the U.S. or Israel.

Sabti noted that these pauses often lead to an endless cycle of ideologically driven violence rather than a permanent cessation of conflict.

Vahidi, the new IRGC commander, is central to this atmosphere of uncertainty.

Sabti described Vahidi to Digital as a violent individual from a generation rooted in guerrilla tactics.

According to Sabti, Vahidi was part of an early group of operatives who established connections with Lebanese militants around the time of the 1979 revolution, forming the basis for Iran’s regional strategy and its alliance with Hezbollah.

Vahidi eventually rose to lead the Quds Force in the 1990s, overseeing international operations.

He has been implicated in major international attacks, such as the 1992 Israeli Embassy bombing and the 1994 AMIA Jewish center bombing in Argentina.

Sabti also mentioned allegations that Vahidi maintained ties with al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, illustrating Iran’s readiness to partner with groups opposed to Western interests.

Despite holding various political roles, Sabti noted that Vahidi never truly left the Revolutionary Guards, keeping his influence tied to the regime’s security core.

“He remained a member of the Revolutionary Guards throughout, even in uniform,” Sabti said, noting this is a common practice for Iranian officials in politics.

Sabti also highlighted Vahidi’s role in crushing Kurdish revolts in the late 1970s, emphasizing his long history with internal security.

Vahidi’s return comes as Iran’s internal power structure appears increasingly fragmented and concentrated in competing networks.

Ben Taleblu observed that it is currently unclear how well-coordinated the Iranian government’s military and political moves are.

He characterized the Iranian regime as a “system of men” rather than laws, where personal influence is more important than official titles.

This trend has sharpened during the ongoing conflict.

“We are witnessing the rise of the IRGC across various political and security sectors in Iran,” he stated.

Ben Taleblu added that the IRGC’s growing dominance will lead to a more aggressive regime, even as its military capabilities decline.

Sabti suggested that Vahidi might currently hold more sway than other leaders like Ghalibaf or Mojtaba Khamenei.

“In my estimation, he is the dominant figure right now, even if they are working together,” Sabti said, adding that internal rivalry is currently sidelined.

He warned that Vahidi’s influence could lead to a more radicalized Iranian stance.

Sabti noted that Vahidi might prefer to continue the conflict as it benefits the Revolutionary Guards’ interests.

“They could dominate the region if the U.S. retreats, which aligns with his goals,” he said.

While Trump’s comments sparked hope for diplomacy, experts warn that these signals might not represent a unified Iranian front.

Ben Taleblu questioned whether the message received by Trump was sincere or merely the maneuvering of an ambitious individual.

He reiterated that Pezeshkian lacks the power to decide on major military conflicts with the U.S.

This suggests that any diplomatic outreach could be a tactical move or a result of internal contradictions.

Digital reached out to the White House for comment, but no response was provided before the story was published.