If you were still unclear as to who’s actually in charge in Iran — and regular readers shouldn’t be unclear, because God knows I’ve been emphatic — it’s Bagher Ghalibaf.
He’s leading face-to-face peace talks with Donald Trump’s envoys starting this weekend in Islamabad. So, JD Vance will be negotiating directly with Ghalibaf, and that has the potential to be a frustrating experience.
As detailed in “The Ghalibaf Question,” and as discussed across any number of Iran-related articles published here since mid-January, Ghalibaf’s a regime fixture. A hardliner’s hardliner. A man who’s posted nearly as many pictures of Qassem Soleimani on social media as he’s posted of himself over the last 12 months.
The good news is, Ghalibaf’s not a religious fundamentalist, his pretensions to being a spiritual leader and Principlist credentials notwithstanding.
It wouldn’t be quite right to say Ghalibaf’s a man of faith about like Donald Trump’s a man of Christ, but that’s a “directionally” accurate quip, if you catch my drift.
Ghalibaf’s a grifter and a gangster, not always in that order. He’s famously corrupt and eminently transactional, which should, and in my judgment ultimately will, make him an ideal negotiating partner for someone like Trump.
However, he also shares other traits with Trump which’ll make getting a peace deal over the finish line challenging. Ghalibaf’s a belligerent blowhard, and at no point will he adopt a conciliatory tone.
Like Trump, Ghalibaf will be abrasive to the end. And beyond. He may well be Iran’s Delcy in practice, but his public pronouncements will remain distinguishable from stereotypical Iranian bluster only by whatever smidgen of decorum he feels compelled to include as a member of the country’s civilian government.
Officially, Ghalibaf’s parliament speaker, but I really wish mainstream media outlets would stop referring to him first as that. The New York Times had the right idea last week when they described him as “one of the generals leading the war.”
There’s no such thing as a “former” IRGC commander, and even if there were, Ghalibaf wouldn’t be the exemplar. He’s a lifer. He’s also a real-life strongman with the potential to run Iran in perpetuity.
On Wednesday afternoon in the US, he accused Trump of violating the ceasefire three ways: First by flying a drone into Iran (Ghalibaf says the Guards shot it down; who knows if that’s true), then by refusing to compel Israel to cease attacking Lebanon (a condition Ghalibaf claims is part of the deal, in addition to being a key element of the 10-point plan Trump on Tuesday described as “a workable basis on which to negotiate”) and by “denying” to Iran the right to enrich uranium.
The market mostly (and wisely) ignored Ghalibaf’s allegations, even as the financial media made a big story of them.
I’m not suggesting anyone dismiss Ghalibaf. Far from it. I’ve been adamant — ad nauseam — that this is the man with the power now in Iran. But, to reiterate, he’s going to say something abrasive every day for the next two weeks, just like Trump.
Moreover, Ghalibaf knows better than anyone that Israel isn’t going to completely cease operating in Lebanon for two weeks absent a Lebanon-specific deal. Even in the presence of such a deal, the notion that the IDF will go completely quiet is laughable.
Additionally, Ghalibaf, despite being de facto head of the Guards now, wasn’t able to prevent a thoroughly decentralized IRGC from firing missiles and drones early Wednesday. Those attacks presumably constituted “violations” too, but Trump didn’t call them that. Or at least not immediately.
Ultimately, my advice (not “investment advice,” per se, rather just “in general” advice) is to try, as best you can, to separate signal from noise over the next several days. It won’t be easy. Between the two of them, Trump and Ghalibaf are going to be very loud.
One final note: Trump probably will need to lean on Israel to dial it back. Iran knows the IDF’s not going to go silent, but around-the-clock bombing in Lebanon violates the spirit of this whole endeavor, if perhaps not the word of anything Israel formally agreed to.
Abbas Araghchi underscored as much. “The US must choose — ceasefire or continued war via Israel,” he said Wednesday. “It cannot have both.”
I think the big Saudi crude oil facility at Abqaiq that serves the East-West pipeline is burning. Also a strike on UAE Fujairah, a strike on a pump station on that East-West pipeline, strikes on Kuwait and Qatar, and maybe something about closing SoH too. Retaliation for US’ denial that Lebanon is included in cease-fire, or just a few IRGC units didn’t get the memo? If actually some action on SoH then definitely not the latter.
Perhaps as a practical matter this is less an actual agreed cease-fire and more the US backing off to buy itself some time to delay doing the civilization thing and/or the ground operation thing, while Israel and Iran think about how much they want to go along with the backing off, and whatever negotiations are possible happen in Islamabad.
If you try to keep up with everything that’s on fire over there at any given time you’re going to drive yourself crazy. Somebody’s going to be “violating” this ceasefire all day, every day. At no point (not for one single, solitary second) over the next two weeks will either side be in complete compliance. It’s entirely possible that an entire ship blows up at some point. But that doesn’t mean the deal’s off. Even if Trump calls it off, it’s not off. This is just the tariffs, only with missiles instead of trade duties. We should all know how this works by now. It looked briefly late Monday and early Tuesday like Trump had lost it entirely, but now we’re back to “Trump 101,” as one strategist put it Wednesday.
I wonder though what might lead US to go back to the “take W and walk” or some other outcome that leaves SoH tolled. Has implications for energy prices longer term.
It’s more than just energy prices. It sets Iran up to be the regional power. Being able to selectively deny shipping access and/or toll the world is significant.
Should a gulf state try to build a pipeline, Iran would be in position to completely deny their oil from reaching market during the entire construction process, or until they decide it might be a bad idea to pursue a pipeline…
Pay attention to Oman. There’s a shiny new greenfield port at Duqm that’s conveniently located directly across the Arabian Sea from Mumbai.
Especially if Iran disables the East-West pipeline which appears to be its intention, or at least its threat.
Early in the day I saw a pronouncement from Pakistan that Lebanon WAS included. Who knows?
Not long after i asked a friend what the over/under ppint was until Bibi found a pretext to launch missiles again. “Days? Make that hours” he replied.
Israel never stopped bombing. At least if you’re talking about Lebanon.
Lebanon was explicitly included in the statements Pakistan made announcing the ceasefire. Bibi and Israel did Bibi and Israel things.
That being said I’m extremely optimistic. Sharif the Younger is the perfect intermediary for this clusterfuck. Corrupt as hell and a non pious member of an ostensibly religious party.
Heck, they’ve even figured out the perfect underlying bribe with using World Liberty Financial (ie: Witcoff and Trump) crypto for the “toll”.
The only thing we have to worry about is Bibi and MBZ. Everyone else is on board.
If the World Liberty Financial thing is real, then the Iranians have clearly learned the way to Trump’s heart. Like Qatar, throw him personally some money and he’ll rollover and let you rub his tummy. He, Trump, has never cared about anything or anybody except himself. He once admitted openly that he hadn’t changed one iota since 2nd grade. The way he acts and thinks
certainly supports that insight.
Pakistan figured it out. I’m just reading tea leaves but the change in toll payment terms from yuan to crypto stirred up a memory.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/pakistan-partner-with-world-liberty-financial-dollar-linked-stablecoin-source-2026-01-14/
Another remarkable picture. If I didn’t recognize them, and it were presented without context, I’d accept the caption “NYU Critical Theory Professor Goldfarb and his adoring husband Asher” without a second thought.
It’s absolutely, hilariously incredible, and there are thousands upon thousands of those sorts of pictures across these guys’ social media accounts and IRGC / Hezbollah / PMF propaganda channels. It’s the damndest thing you’ll ever see, and the inherent dark comedy speaks to how and why I ended up so fascinated with this network when I first got “assigned” to cover it in mid-2015. Everything about it is in some way, shape or form unique, extraordinary, absurd, silly, terrifying and just epic, for lack of a better word. (“Epic” in a bad way, obviously, but still epic.) It’s unfortunate that Tehran brought Hamas into this fold. In addition to the sectarian mismatch, it really wasn’t a good fit. I know people chafe at this, and I fully understand and appreciate why, but this network is / was not what it’s made out to be by Western governments. Is it (was it) a “terrorist” network on some definition of the term “terrorist”? Yes, absolutely. Is it (was it) a “terrorist” network on the definition of the term as we, in the West, tend to think of “terrorists” post-9/11? No. Of course, Soleimani had connections to al-Qaeda and he was an interlocutor with anyone and everyone, but by and large, these guys were the antithesis of that sort of terror. One day I want to do some scholarly research on the Sunni/Shia divide to see whether this modern juxtaposition is consistent with or an inversion of history — this scenario where Sunni extremism dead-ended in the bin Laden / ISIS stereotype while Shia militancy ended up manifesting as this kind of purpose-built, goal-oriented, multi-national networking effort spearheaded by one powerful state aiming for regional hegemony. I’d be interested to know if scholars would say “This was to be expected based on the history, specifics and ideological differences in the divide and the specifics of the original split” or whether they’d say something like, “Actually, this is a surprise because traditionally, Sunnis were XYZ and Shias were ABC.”
Amazing coverage and analysis, including the comments. I do wonder- what happens if Ghalibaf can not bring himself to do as Trump wants?
As far as implementing your advice (“try, as best you can, to separate signal from noise over the next several days“)- I will continue to first look at The Heisenberg Report for information and analysis.
” I do wonder- what happens if Ghalibaf can not bring himself to do as Trump wants?”
I was pondering the same question this morning except that I had substituted Bibi for Ghalibaf.
Many world leaders, especially the Dark Lords, have learned how to manipulate Trump. He’s crazy but simple. From one point of view, Trump looks like the ball in a global game of pingpong.
Great article, I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that any part of Iran’s 10 point plan is acceptable to the US. Agreement on anything close to that would be complete capitulation.
Fantastic report and insight.
I can see ending this as a protectionist racket with derivatives.
Iran ” nice tanker you have there would be a shame if something happened to it”
Donny ‘Mano Nera’ Trump ” Ghalibaf you should think about a tribute to the family”