With the absence of Ali Larijani from the heart of the Iranian regime, the search for a new figure begins, and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf returns to the forefront.

In this vacuum, the name of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the current parliament speaker, emerges as a prominent candidate to fill the leadership gap.

The pressing question today is: why Ghalibaf in particular, and is he truly the right man for the next phase?

He solidified his image as an executive during his tenure as Tehran's mayor (2005–2017) through extensive infrastructure projects, despite facing numerous corruption allegations. Since 2020, he has served as the Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly and is also a member of the Supreme National Security Council. In short, he is a former general, an experienced executive, and a central political figure within the regime.

Why is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf's name being raised now? 

The mention of Ghalibaf's name at this moment is not incidental but reflects a structural need within the regime. He possesses dual expertise, combining field security experience with the capacity to manage state institutions during crises.

After Mojtaba Khamenei's appointment as leader, there is a clear lack of executive experience, making Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf the choice to provide the regime's "executive arm," particularly in coordinating security, politics, and managing sensitive files.

Ghalibaf's role as an extension of the Revolutionary Guard, being a product of the military institution, grants him legitimacy within security and military agencies. He may not be the most ideological, but he is the most "manageable."

Despite his strong presence, power in Iran cannot be reduced to a single person; decisions are not made individually but rely on a balance among several power centers. 

Ghalibaf's role is not that of a "ruler," but of an executive coordinator who manages interactions among these centers. His membership in the Supreme National Security Council gives him direct influence in shaping strategic decisions, particularly following Larijani's absence.

Ghalibaf's presence at the forefront of decision-making has direct implications for Iran's regional behavior, reflecting an approach that combines security toughness with political pragmatism. Regarding Lebanon, Hezbollah is considered an integral part of Iran's national security framework, with any settlement that would weaken its position being firmly rejected. His previous visit to Beirut, during which he piloted the plane himself, sent a clear symbolic message in this context. In contrast, Ghalibaf tends to adopt a "defensive-offensive" strategy, managing conflict through asymmetric tools such as pressuring navigation lines in the Strait of Hormuz and leveraging regional influence. Nevertheless, despite this hardline approach, his recognized pragmatism keeps him open to conditional settlements, ensuring the regime's continuity and protecting its regional influence network.

Ghalibaf is not merely a proposed name but represents a function sought by the regime in a moment of turbulence. He serves as a convergence point between security, politics, and administration, standing at the crossroads of the relationship between the Revolutionary Guard and state institutions. Thus, the real question is not simply whether he will become the decision-maker, but extends to a deeper issue: does the structure of the Iranian regime even allow for the emergence of a "single man" at this stage?