Larijani emerges as de facto ruler after failed bid to sideline Khamenei

Monday 23 February 2026 - 16:50

By: Dakir Madiha

Larijani emerges as de facto ruler after failed bid to sideline Khamenei

An alleged internal attempt to strip Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of his crisis‑management authority during January’s nationwide unrest collapsed when Ali Larijani refused to back the move, paving the way for his rise as the country’s dominant power broker. According to accounts attributed to French daily Le Figaro, former president Hassan Rouhani and ex‑foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif convened a late‑night meeting on 7–8 January, as protests intensified, seeking to edge Khamenei out of key decisions in order to keep the political system from unraveling. The initiative reportedly brought together Rouhani’s former government allies, clerics from the religious centre of Qom and figures linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, but ultimately stalled when Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, declined to lend his support.

Le Figaro’s account, echoed in summaries carried by regional outlets, says the goal was not a classic coup but a bid to concentrate emergency powers in a leadership committee excluding Khamenei as security forces prepared a sweeping crackdown on demonstrators. Opposition sources cited in those reports claim the ensuing repression, which peaked after 8 January, left thousands dead, a toll far higher than figures acknowledged by Iranian authorities. Human rights groups and UN experts have separately documented mass killings and systematic use of live ammunition during the protests, with official bodies in Tehran conceding that the number of fatalities runs into the thousands nationwide.

Once word of the internal maneuver reached the top of the state, Rouhani and Zarif were said to have been placed under short‑term house arrest, while several reform‑aligned associates were briefly detained. Earlier rumors about their detention, which circulated on social networks in mid‑January, had been dismissed by Zarif’s office as fabricated, and both men were later photographed attending a funeral in Tehran, images that pro‑government media used to counter claims they had been sidelined. The authorities have not publicly confirmed any punitive measures related to the alleged plot, and Iranian officials have continued to present the January crackdown as a necessary response to “rioters” and “foreign‑backed conspiracies.”

Parallel reporting by international outlets, including a detailed investigation attributed to the New York Times and relayed by Middle East media, portrays Larijani as the chief beneficiary of the turmoil, describing him as Khamenei’s chosen operational lieutenant with sweeping oversight of security, diplomacy and war planning since early January. Interviews with current and former Iranian officials cited in those accounts depict Larijani directing the bloody suppression of protests, coordinating with regional partners such as Russia, Qatar and Oman, and leading back‑channel nuclear talks with the United States as tensions with Washington rise and Tehran braces for possible US military strikes. The 67‑year‑old conservative insider, long embedded in the Islamic Republic’s political and security institutions, is presented as the system’s key troubleshooter, operating with Khamenei’s full trust while further eclipsing elected president Masoud Pezeshkian.

Analysts quoted in these reports argue that the episode reveals a regime under acute internal and external strain, yet still capable of closing ranks around unelected security figures when faced with existential pressure. The alleged attempt by Rouhani’s camp to curtail Khamenei’s role underscores the depth of anxiety within parts of the establishment over the scale of bloodshed and the risk of systemic collapse, even as the final outcome has reinforced the primacy of security organs over civilian institutions. With Larijani now widely portrayed by foreign media and Iranian insiders as Iran’s de facto ruler in day‑to‑day governance, the crisis has highlighted the extent to which real authority lies not in the presidency but in the hands of a security chief directly answerable to the supreme leader.