Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is increasingly being positioned as the scapegoat for the perceived failure of a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the US, a move that analysts suggest is designed to deflect from deep-seated tensions among competing factions within Tehran's ruling elite. The escalation of the US-Israeli war on Iran has intensified scrutiny of the MoU, which was intended to serve as a framework for peace talks. Recent US strikes on Iran have resulted in casualties, further jeopardizing the agreement and fueling public discontent.

This blame game is not new within Iran's political landscape. The architecture of such strategies often involves designating an individual to absorb public anger, thereby shielding other powerful entities from criticism. The current situation with President Pezeshkian fits this pattern, as official rhetoric increasingly points to him as the sole responsible party for the MoU's potential collapse. This strategy serves a dual purpose: providing a public scapegoat and obscuring the complex internal divisions that define the current Iranian political system.

Following the MoU's signing, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei publicly stated he had "a different view" on the agreement. He indicated his approval was contingent on President Pezeshkian, as head of the Supreme National Security Council, guaranteeing the protection of Iranian rights and the "Resistance Front." Khamenei explicitly placed responsibility on the president, notably omitting the name of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of parliament and the actual chief negotiator. This omission was deliberate, according to Iranian media reports, which stated Ghalibaf was entrusted by "the system" to lead the negotiations.

The deliberate separation of potential benefits and risks associated with the MoU highlights a calculated power play. If the agreement proves successful, the credit is likely to be attributed to Ghalibaf and his negotiating team. Conversely, any failure or negative repercussions will be squarely placed on President Pezeshkian. This dynamic underscores the distribution of power within post-war Iran, suggesting that influence is not solely tied to the presidential office.

The MoU itself is understood to have been engineered by what is described as Iran's "true ruling bloc": a fusion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), state security forces, and expansive revolutionary-religious foundations known as "bonyads." This complex, which controls a significant portion of Iran's economy through opaque financial networks bolstered by sanctions, operates largely outside civilian oversight. Its leadership is directly appointed by the supreme leader.

This internal division and strategic blame allocation are occurring against the backdrop of escalating conflict. The US-Israeli war on Iran has seen recent strikes causing significant casualties, creating an environment of heightened tension and uncertainty. The future of the peace talks, and by extension the stability of the region, hinges on how these internal political dynamics and external pressures are managed.

Experts suggest that by focusing blame on Pezeshkian, the regime aims to manage internal dissent and consolidate power among the more entrenched elements of the ruling elite. The military-bonyad complex, with its deep economic and security ties, appears to be navigating the crisis by insulating itself from direct accountability.

Unresolved questions remain regarding the ultimate fate of the MoU and the long-term implications of this internal power struggle. The international community is closely watching to see if the peace process can survive these internal political machinations and the ongoing external conflict.