In a significant development underreported by many mainstream outlets, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has assumed effective control over both Iran's military responses and its negotiating positions in high-stakes talks with the United States. According to a detailed April 18, 2026, assessment by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and Critical Threats Project (CTP), IRGC Commander Major General Ahmad Vahidi and his inner circle have secured temporary dominance over decision-making, sidelining civilian diplomats. This includes direct interference in talks, such as attempts to insert IRGC-affiliated figures like Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr into delegations despite objections from Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Araghchi and other officials reportedly lacked full authority to issue or accept demands, with IRGC leaders overriding or criticizing diplomatic statements—most notably on the Strait of Hormuz, where Araghchi declared it 'completely open' only for IRGC-linked forces to attack vessels and reimpose strict controls hours later.[1][2]

This shift reflects deeper regime fractures exacerbated by the 2025-2026 Iran-US conflict. Anti-regime sources and ISW reporting document rifts between President Masoud Pezeshkian and IRGC hardliners, with Vahidi and allies like Ali Abdollahi Aliabadi driving kinetic responses and rejecting pragmatic economic concerns. Reports indicate veteran IRGC commanders have consolidated power through appointments and vetoes, even as Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei faces questions over his capacity following reported injuries. The large Iranian delegation to talks in Islamabad blended diplomats, IRGC proxies, and technocrats, underscoring internal monitoring rather than unified strategy. IRGC-affiliated media has pushed back against perceived concessions, emphasizing leverage via Hormuz disruptions that threaten one-fifth of global oil transit.[3][4]

Connections often missed include how this IRGC dominance extends beyond immediate talks: it builds on long-term economic control and post-protest hardening, potentially dooming flexible diplomacy. While US and Iranian interpretations of progress diverge sharply, the IRGC's operational veto power means any agreement requires hardliner buy-in that pragmatic negotiators cannot guarantee. This realignment favors 'resistance economy' ideology over reform, with risks of renewed escalation if IRGC hardliners perceive weakness. Sources confirm Araghchi had to 'convince' IRGC commanders on ceasefire elements, highlighting the military's de facto supremacy in what were once diplomatic domains.