The White House is “testing” several candidates from within the Iranian regime, looking for an interlocutor willing to negotiate
Behind the scenes of the administration in Washington, a low-key assessment of several political figures in Iran is underway in an attempt to identify a dialogue partner — and possibly a future leader — capable of striking a deal with the United States. The signals coming from the White House indicate a possible change in strategy: from military pressure to a negotiated solution to the conflict.
USA in search of a leader to please/PHOTO:X
Among the names in the attention of the Americans is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the current president of the Iranian Parliament. The 64-year-old is seen by some in the administration as a pragmatic figure capable of leading Iran through an eventual transition and negotiating directly with Donald Trump's team.
Today, unconfirmed information was circulated that Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf was the target of a possible assassination attempt in the Zafaraniyeh area of northern Tehran. Iranian authorities have not yet officially confirmed this.
Sources inside the American administration claim, however, that there is no single option for now. The strategy would be to “test” several potential candidates, to identify the person willing to accept the terms of an agreement. “It's a serious option, but we're in no rush. We're evaluating everyone,” said one of the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Searching for a way out of the impasse
The interest in identifying a credible interlocutor reflects the difficulty of the situation on the ground. The conflict with Iran has already caused turbulence in global markets, sent oil prices soaring and brought inflation fears back to the fore. At the same time, after the military strikes launched by the US and Israel on the Iranian leadership structures, the essential question remains: who is next and what happens next?
Official representatives of the administration, however, avoid sharp statements. “These are sensitive diplomatic discussions and are not conducted through the media,” the White House spokeswoman said.
For his part, Donald Trump suggested the existence of contacts with “very important figures” in Iran and announced a five-day pause on attacks on energy infrastructure, in parallel with the ongoing negotiations.
The stake of oil and the “Venezuela model”
Beyond the military and diplomatic component, Washington's calculations also have an obvious economic dimension. According to some officials, Trump would avoid a strike on Kharg Island — Iran's main oil hub — in the hope of securing a favorable deal on energy resources.
The model invoked in the discussions is that of Venezuela, where Delcy Rodríguez, vice president, negotiated favorable conditions to keep the regime in power. The logic would be simple: political stability in exchange for some economic concessions, especially in the oil field.
However, not all American officials are convinced that such a scenario can be replicated in Iran. Sources close to the national security area warn that Tehran has already demonstrated the ability to withstand pressure and will not easily cede control of its resources.
At the same time, there are suspicions that Trump could exaggerate the progress of the negotiations to buy time and justify extending the ultimatum to Iran. “He's trying to stabilize the markets, but it's not clear if he's really after a deal or just upping the ante,” said an official from a Gulf country.
A difficult partner
Even in Ghalibaf's case, experts are reserved. Analyst Ali Vaez points out that this is a product of the Iranian system: pragmatic but deeply attached to the current power structure. Under these conditions, major concessions to Washington seem unlikely, and any openings could be limited by the military and security elites.
Moreover, after the recent attacks, mistrust, not willingness to compromise, dominates in Iran.
In this context, the scenario of installing a leader in exile, such as Reza Pahlavi, is considered improbable by American officials, who prefer options from within the system.
Testing continues
Despite the official denials coming from Tehran, including Ghalibaf, the American administration considers these reactions as “domestic maneuvers”. The evaluation process is ongoing. “We are in the phase where we are trying to see who can come forward and who is willing to do it. And when someone comes forward, we test them quickly,” explained an official.
At the same time, time pressure increases. Donald Trump would like to reach an agreement this week, especially regarding the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and a possible ceasefire.
In a landscape marked by conflicting statements, indirect negotiations and military escalation, it remains to be seen whether this “testing” strategy will produce the desired result or further deepen uncertainty in the region.
