On 23 April, several senior Iranian leaders responded to former US President Donald Trump’s claim that Iran was embroiled in serious political divisions. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, among others, issued statements in succession, denying the existence of any so-called ‘hardline’ versus ‘moderate’ divide within Iran, and emphasising that all political forces remain loyal to the principles of the Islamic Revolution. Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei also stated that external forces were attempting to influence Iranian society and undermine the nation’s unity and security through media propaganda. However, differing voices have indeed emerged within Iran recently. For instance, Speaker Ghalibaf supports continuing diplomatic negotiations, arguing that all diplomatic actions are conducted within the framework established by the Supreme Leader; yet media outlets closely linked to the Revolutionary Guards have suggested that negotiating with the US on certain key issues is pointless and may even grant the other side more time and leverage. Analysts point out that these differences are largely tactical rather than a conflict over fundamental objectives; in other words, whilst there are differing views on ‘how to proceed’, there is no fundamental disagreement regarding the country’s overall direction. At the same time, attention is also focused on the Supreme Leader’s health and his actual power. Reports suggest that Mojtaba Khamenei is still undergoing treatment and rarely makes public appearances or delivers speeches; consequently, some key decisions have been taken over by senior figures within the Revolutionary Guards. Some analysts believe that he currently plays a largely symbolic role, primarily responsible for approving decisions, whilst the actual decision-making process is dominated by a core group comprising the military and security agencies. Against this backdrop, Iran’s power structure is undergoing a transformation. The Revolutionary Guards, the National Security Council and political figures with close ties to the security apparatus are gradually forming a relatively centralised power core. By contrast, the role of the civilian government has diminished somewhat, with the President and his cabinet now primarily responsible for implementing policies rather than formulating strategy. However, this does not imply that civilian institutions have become entirely irrelevant; rather, their functions have been redefined. Recently, tensions between the US and Iran have also intensified internal discussions. The US continues to impose an economic blockade on Iran and exert pressure on the country, leading to differing views within Iran on whether to continue negotiations. Hardliners generally believe that the US lacks sincerity in negotiations and therefore dialogue should not continue; whereas some officials point out that the war has already caused enormous damage to Iran’s economy, and that negotiations must be pursued to secure the lifting of sanctions and restore the economy. Overall, experts generally agree that whilst there are indeed divisions within Iran, these have not yet developed into a genuine split. Iran is currently in a transitional phase, with power being redistributed and the influence of military and security institutions increasing. During this process, it is normal for different political forces to discuss or even debate strategies and interests, but the country’s overall direction remains consistent. Therefore, rather than saying that Iran has split, it is more accurate to describe it as undergoing a complex yet relatively stable process of adjustment.