Three-minute read
In a pre-recorded broadcast on November 27, 2025, the Iranian regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei resurfaced briefly to mark the regime’s “Basij Day,” denying reports of Tehran’s outreach to Washington and calling for unity among fractious ruling factions. This year, unlike past ceremonies, he did not appear in public or address Basij forces directly—an absence that follows weeks of heightened security and internal disputes over negotiations with the United States.
Khamenei dismissed revelations by Reuters and other outlets that Tehran had sought Saudi mediation to re-open communication channels with Washington, calling the reports “sheer lies” and insisting the clerical regime “absolutely” does not pursue ties with the U.S. His denial came despite confirmations by former lawmaker Mostafa Kavakebian that Masoud Pezeshkian had sent a letter to Mohammed bin Salman “with Khamenei’s permission,” and despite reporting that Trump had authorized Riyadh to act as an intermediary.
Denials Amid Confirmed Mediation Attempts
Rather than addressing the substance of the reports, Khamenei framed the story as part of foreign “rumor-making.” Yet multiple sources—including Iranian insiders and regional intermediaries—have verified that Pezeshkian urged the Saudi crown prince to encourage Washington to resume nuclear talks.
The contradiction underscores how perilous these overtures are for the regime itself: any hint of negotiation with Washington risks further demoralizing an already shaken power base and laying bare the system’s profound vulnerability.
Khamenei’s abrupt, categorical denial appears aimed at containing the damage—an attempt to reassert control after multiple leaks made the regime’s secret outreach unmistakably visible.
Khamenei Rejects U.S. Overtures, Says Conflict with U.S. Is Permanenthttps://t.co/93WEuazTdr
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) November 3, 2025
A Leader in Seclusion After the 12-Day War
Khamenei’s limited visibility since the 12-day conflict with Israel has deepened speculation about security fears inside the regime. During the war and in the weeks following, he remained out of public view and reportedly sheltered in an underground facility. His decision to mark Basij Day with only a pre-recorded message underscores the regime’s caution at a time of political and military strain.
Still, he attempted to project strength, claiming that Iran had delivered a “real defeat” to the United States and Israel. He said the enemy “returned empty-handed” and that the regime suffered fewer material losses than its adversaries—claims sharply at odds with the actual toll of strikes, assassinations of senior IRGC personnel, and intelligence failures that left Iran’s security services reeling.
#Khamenei Rejects U.S. Talks, Vows Enrichment Will Continue as Snapback Deadline Nearshttps://t.co/Q0Ug6uBUgs
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) September 23, 2025
Calls for Unity Reflect Intensifying Internal Splits
One of the clearest signs of strain was Khamenei’s admission that “differences between groups and political factions” exist inside the regime. He urged the ruling elite to remain united “as in the 12-day war,” portraying internal cohesion as essential for “national strength.”
Such appeals typically emerge in moments of vulnerability. This year, they follow:
- mounting divisions over diplomacy with the U.S.,
- disputes over war management,
- disagreement over the government’s performance, and
- declining confidence in the Pezeshkian administration among IRGC and Khamenei-tied circles.
The regime’s own state media, including Tasnim, has pressed the theme of unity repeatedly—signaling concern about erosion at the top.
#Iranian Regime Admits to Internal Attacks on Khamenei as Crisis Convergence Drives Disunity https://t.co/XcyNmeZSeO
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) November 24, 2025
Inflated Praise of the Basij Signals Fear of Unrest
Khamenei dedicated much of his message to glorifying the Basij, calling it a “great national treasure” and insisting Iran “needs the Basij more than any other country.” He urged officials to act “like Basijis” and demanded that the militia be promoted aggressively among the youth.
Such praise typically accompanies periods of rising domestic discontent. By describing scientists, missile engineers, doctors, and even athletes as “Basijis,” Khamenei attempted to recast disparate sectors of the population into a unified security apparatus. This rhetorical inflation reflects a longstanding regime tactic: equating national identity with loyalty to the Supreme Leader.
The emphasis on Basij expansion suggests the regime anticipates renewed protests and requires a larger social-control network.
Khamenei’s Weak Position Exposed as #Iran's Rival Factions Escalate Infightinghttps://t.co/Z7U9xguQdl
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) September 4, 2025
Attacks on the United States Expose Diplomatic Anxiety
While denying mediation, Khamenei launched wide-ranging accusations against Washington, calling the U.S. “an international thug,” “supporter of genocide,” and “not a state Iran would seek cooperation with.” He tied U.S. actions to conflicts from Gaza to Latin America and repeated claims that the United States suffers “increasing isolation.”
Such rhetoric serves two purposes:
- Distancing himself from diplomatic overtures that have already been publicly exposed;
- Reassuring regime loyalists that he remains committed to ideological confrontation despite rising internal pressure for a policy shift.
The Financial Times noted a growing number of regime insiders—including relatives of senior officials—now calling for rethinking the confrontation with the U.S. following the war’s fallout.
#Iran's Economic Strain and Unrest Fears Drive Khamenei’s Push for Narrative Controlhttps://t.co/F51d8EVrf4
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) September 8, 2025
A Leader on the Defensive
Khamenei’s video address—delivered from seclusion, denying confirmed mediation efforts, exaggerating battlefield success, and pleading for unity—reveals a regime struggling to manage internal fractures. His praise of the Basij and insistence on ideological steadfastness reflect a leadership that views cohesion through the lens of repression rather than governance.
The contradictions between his claims and the regime’s own actions underscore a political structure increasingly defined by insecurity, secrecy, and the absence of public confidence.