Prepared For The Long Haul: Who Is Really Calling The Shots In Iran?

Last Updated:March 13, 2026, 14:31 IST

The answer lies in Tehran’s unique and deliberately decentralised power structure - the mosaic defence - where authority is spread across bodies.

Even as the war between the United States, Israel and Iran intensifies, the messaging from both sides could not be more different. While Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested that Washington can end the conflict whenever it chooses, Tehran has made it clear that it does not see the war in those terms. Iranian officials and commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have vowed retaliation for every strike and insist that the timeline of the conflict will be determined in Tehran — not Washington. The defiant rhetoric has been accompanied by continued drone launches, missile activity and defensive operations, signalling that Iran’s military machine remains active despite heavy losses in its leadership.

The political transition in Tehran has been just as rapid. After the killing of long-time supreme leader Ali Khamenei in recent strikes, Iran’s clerical establishment moved swiftly to appoint his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as the country’s new supreme leader in an attempt to project continuity and stability. But fresh reports now suggest Mojtaba Khamenei himself may have been injured in subsequent attacks, with some unverified claims even suggesting he could be in a coma. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the very top of Iran’s leadership, the country’s military operations have shown little sign of slowing down.

That paradox raises an important question: if the supreme leader is in a coma as reports suggest, who is actually running Iran’s war effort? The answer lies in Tehran’s unique and deliberately decentralised power structure – the mosaic defence – where authority is spread across clerical bodies, political institutions and powerful security organisations like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Even if the figure at the top is absent, the system is designed to keep functioning — ensuring that the state, and its war machine, continues to operate.

What Is Iran’s Mosaic Defence?

Iran’s military doctrine known as “mosaic defence" is built around a straight ideology: the country should be able to keep fighting even if its leadership, command centres, or communications networks are destroyed in a war. The strategy assumes that in any major conflict with stronger militaries such as the United States or Israel, Iran could lose senior commanders or central control early in the war. Instead of relying on a single command chain, the system spreads authority across multiple regional units so that operations can continue even if the top leadership is eliminated.

The concept was developed in the mid-2000s within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under former commander Ali Jafari, who reorganised Iran’s defence structure into a network of semi-autonomous regional commands. Rather than one central headquarters directing everything, the country’s military forces — including IRGC units, the regular army, militia groups like the Basij, and missile and naval forces — are divided into multiple operational cells spread across the country. Each unit is capable of acting independently if communications with Tehran are disrupted or senior leaders are killed.

The doctrine also emphasises dispersion and redundancy. Weapon systems, command centres and troops are distributed across different locations so that a single airstrike or “decapitation strike" cannot paralyse the entire military. Provincial commanders are given pre-authorised operational guidelines, allowing them to continue launching drone, missile or guerrilla operations without waiting for orders from the capital. In essence, the military is designed to function even if the “head" of the system is hit.

Beyond simply defending territory, mosaic defence is meant to turn war into a long and exhausting conflict for Iran’s adversaries. By combining decentralised command, militia mobilisation and asymmetric tactics, Tehran aims to make any invasion or sustained bombing campaign costly and difficult to end quickly. The strategy reflects Iran’s broader belief that survival in a war with stronger powers will depend less on conventional strength and more on endurance, decentralisation and the ability to keep fighting even after major losses.

Who Is Iran’s Fourth Successor?

Iran’s war-time leadership planning includes a concept often referred to as the “fourth successor" — essentially a layered succession system designed to ensure the state continues functioning even if several top leaders are killed in a conflict. The idea stems from Tehran’s long-standing expectation that in a war with powerful adversaries like the United States or Israel, senior figures — including the supreme leader and his immediate replacements — could be targeted. To prevent a power vacuum, Iran maintains a deep hierarchy of leadership so that authority can quickly pass down multiple levels without disrupting governance or military command.

Under Iran’s political structure, the Assembly of Experts is responsible for choosing a new supreme leader. If the sitting leader dies or is incapacitated, an interim leadership council can temporarily take over the responsibilities of the office while the clerical body selects a successor. This arrangement was briefly seen after the killing of Ali Khamenei, when a three-member council that included Masoud Pezeshkian and other senior officials handled the duties of the leadership until a permanent successor was named.

The “fourth successor" concept expands on this idea by ensuring that multiple layers of leadership are already identified or prepared in advance. In practical terms, it means that if the supreme leader and the first few replacements are eliminated in a strike, the system still has additional figures who can assume authority and keep state institutions — especially the military and security apparatus — functioning. The strategy reflects Iran’s broader war doctrine of decentralisation, where the state prepares for leadership losses but ensures that decision-making, command and resistance can continue regardless of who is at the top.

How Is Iran Preparing Itself For A Long Fight?

Iran’s military planners have long assumed that any war with stronger powers like the United States or Israel could turn into a prolonged conflict. As a result, the IRGC has developed contingency strategies — described by sources as “Plan C" — to ensure the country can keep fighting even if its conventional capabilities are severely degraded. The plan is built on the idea that the war should not depend solely on missiles, air defences or central command structures. Instead, Iran is preparing for a scenario where the conflict shifts into a long, grinding struggle that mixes conventional strikes with asymmetric warfare.

Under this approach, even if Iran’s missile stockpiles or major bases are destroyed in airstrikes, the fight would continue through guerrilla tactics, decentralised operations and irregular forces. Military planners believe that if foreign troops ever set foot inside Iran, they could be drawn into a prolonged insurgency across the country’s difficult terrain and densely populated cities. Such a conflict would rely heavily on local militia networks, the Basij paramilitary forces and regional units of the Revolutionary Guards, making it far harder for an external military to achieve a quick victory.

At the same time, Tehran’s broader wartime strategy appears to be focused on endurance and attrition. Iran has continued launching drones and missiles despite heavy bombardment, signalling that it aims to stretch the conflict long enough to test the political and economic stamina of its adversaries. Analysts say the leadership believes survival — not outright battlefield victory — is the key objective: if the state and its military structures remain intact after sustained attacks, Iran can claim strategic success simply by outlasting its opponents.

News world Prepared For The Long Haul: Who Is Really Calling The Shots In Iran?

Read More