Rumours, rifts and a reported resignation form a murky picture of a war-ravaged Iran

When Masoud Pezeshkian ascended to the Iranian presidency in 2024, he portrayed himself as a modern leader for a new era.

Battlefields, hospital rooms and Iran's intense political arena had been the backdrop to his rise to power, but the now 71-year-old former cardiac surgeon was seen as less hardline and more "moderate" than his rival.

Nicknamed the Butcher of Tehran, Mr Pezeshkian's predecessor, Ebrahim Raisi, was a ruthless politician whose relentless climb to the top was cut short when his helicopter crashed into a Tabriz mountain during bad weather.

The new president, on the other hand, was a low-profile reformer who frequently insisted that he was "not a special person".

Backed by supreme leader Ali Khamenei, Mr Pezeshkian expressed a desire to cooperate with the West, insisting Iran would only thrive if it was cohesive.

"We do not wish to be the cause of instability in the Middle East," he said in interviews and meetings in the early days of his presidency.

Yet as one of the most powerful men in the country, he faced scrutiny from an army of conservative critics who had favoured a hardliner for the role.

Two years later, Mr Pezeshkian is now caught up in a swirl of rumour and intrigue following a brutal war with the United States and Israel.

Iran International, a Persian-language news channel, reported earlier this week the Iranian president had resigned from his post over an alleged power struggle between his government and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iranian state media were quick to deny the report, which could not be independently verified by the ABC, and called it "rumour-mongering" by a foreign media outlet.

However, there is no denying the unconfirmed resignation report comes at a turbulent moment for Iran's regime given the death of its supreme leader in February in a deadly strike from Israel and the United States.

The consequent war between the three countries has killed many other senior Iranian figures and sent some of those who survived into hiding.

Iran is, at the same time, reeling from water and energy shortages, international sanctions, inflation, weak economic growth and the military defeat of most of its regional allies.

"The regime is clearly going through a transformation and transition of sorts," Ali Ansari, professor of Iranian history and director of the Institute for Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews, told the ABC.

"What emerges will be difficult to tell."

And now the report of leadership fissures adds another layer of uncertainty to the fraught situation.

The cardiac surgeon who became president

Mr Pezeshkian had been a medical student at university in the years leading up to the 1979 revolution that gripped Iran, forcing the Shah into exile and ushering in an Islamic Republic led by hardline conservatives.

It was while studying that Mr Pezeshkian met and fell in love with fellow medical student Fatemeh Majidi, whom he wed despite arranged marriages being more common at the time.

Their union was said to be one between two equals before it ended in tragedy.

In the early 90s, Mrs Pezeshkian and their youngest child, a baby boy, died in a crash after their car hit a rock returning from a family trip to Tabriz.

"It was very difficult for me to continue living," Mr Pezeshkian told Iranian media in later years.

In 2024, he referenced the personal tragedy in a campaign video during his election run, in a rare display of public emotion.

Mr Pezeshkian entered the world of politics as an MP for Tabriz and served as health minister from 2001 to 2005 during then-president Mohammad Khatami's second term.

But the political life he'd long dreamed of was not without its controversies.

In 2003, Mr Pezeshkian faced impeachment as health minister over medical service fees.

He also had some trouble with the Guardian Council, a body of clerics and jurists responsible for vetting candidates.

Mr Pezeshkian's first bid for presidency was ultimately unsuccessful but when he tried to run again in 2021, he was blocked by the council.

It turned out the third time was the charm when Mr Pezeshkian took office in July 2024.

Suddenly, he was in charge of overseeing Iran's day-to-day administration.

But not long into Mr Prezeshkian's presidential term, reports emerged of his moderate government being thrown into turmoil after Iran's conservatives successfully ousted two high-profile officials.

Reports of rising tensions between the president and IRGC

The political upheaval followed criticism of the Iranian president and his government's handling of the economy, particularly the currency, which had lost 50 per cent of its value in a matter of months.

The nation was also facing potential negotiations with Washington over removing sanctions on Tehran. The Iranian president favoured talks but conservatives were vehemently opposed to negotiating.

And when war finally arrived in Iran earlier this year, it brought another set of issues.

Under attack from the US and Israel, Iran's security apparatus struck US bases in neighbouring states in the hope the leaders of those nations would place pressure on Tehran's enemies to end the war.

Iran faced global criticism for doing so and Mr Pezeshkian, who was one of three members who formed part of the interim leadership council after Khamenei's death in February, made the decision to publicly apologise for the attacks.

"The temporary leadership council approved yesterday that neighbouring countries should no longer be targeted and missiles should not be fired unless an attack on Iran originates from those countries," Mr Pezeshkian said in March.

"The armed forces have so far acted with a kind of 'fire at will' authority, but they have now been notified that from now on they must not attack neighbouring countries or target them with missiles."

The rare show of remorse was interpreted on one level as an effort on behalf of Iran to contain the widening regional fallout, and avoid the rogue state becoming further isolated by the conflict.

US President Donald Trump, however, read it as a capitulation, claiming the apology only came about "because of the relentless US and Israeli attacks".

Critics read it that way too and swiftly condemned the Iranian president in public statements and on social media. Former Iranian politician Jalal Rashidi Koochi wrote that an apology happens "when a mistake has occurred. We made no mistake".

"Your message showed no sign of authority," he added.

To emphasise that point, the attacks on neighbouring countries continued, a further confirmation that the Iranian president faced resistance from factions pushing to continue the confrontation, namely the IRGC.

Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at King's College London, said the Pezeshkian incident indicated the civilian presidency no longer had "authoritative control over the most sensitive military decisions".

"I think the IRGC has increased its influence during the war, and quite dramatically," he told the ABC.

"The clearest signs are that it has sidelined the civilian presidency, shaped succession, narrowed the negotiating line and asserted operational authority over regional retaliation and the Strait of Hormuz."

It was his view that the war "has not elevated moderates", but instead men such as Ahmad Vahidi, the commander-in-chief of the IRGC with a reputation for being brutal.

"The stronger reading is that operational authority has shifted into the hands of the IRGC, above all Ahmad Vahidi and the military-security circle around him," Dr Krieg said.

A son's diary entries

Yousef Pezeshkian is the president's 44-year-old son and one-time adviser who has been posting a diary of the war on Telegram.

It was his view that his father was right to apologise to Arab countries for the strikes in a video message on March 7, and he defended the decision on his channels.

In another post, he hinted at disagreements in strategy among Iran's top leaders during the early days of the war.

"The biggest serious disagreement we have is: How long are we supposed to fight?" he wrote, per the New York Times.

The question remains a vexing one, months into the war.

Dr Krieg said ultimately the senior Pezeshkian seemed to want more room for executive control and some kind of economic off-ramp.

He says others, like Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, appear to want enough flexibility to keep diplomacy meaningful, while Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf is more ambiguous.

"He is a bridge figure with deep IRGC roots but also political instincts that can look pragmatic," he said.

Set against them, he says, are Ahmad Vahidi, former deputy IRGC commander Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and the harder IRGC camp, who are "structurally suspicious of compromise".

"I would describe Vahidi as either the single most powerful man in Iran at present or, at minimum, the most powerful operational figure inside a collective IRGC-led ruling core," Dr Krieg said.

"The reporting says he has blocked Pezeshkian from talks, rejected ministerial appointments, dominated negotiations, helped secure Mojtaba's succession, and brought the negotiating track under direct Guard supervision.

"His importance lies not just in his office but in the fact that he seems to embody the institutional takeover of the state by the Guards during wartime."

What does all of this mean for a deal?

Dr Krieg said the friction he had observed between moderates and hardliners was not unusual in Iranian politics.

"What is unusual is how naked and consequential it has become under wartime conditions, after so many senior figures were killed," he added.

Ultimately what this friction means is that making a deal with the United States will be much harder, because Iran "may no longer have a civilian channel empowered to close a meaningful bargain".

Talks between the US and Iran have been taking place over the last few weeks and have centred on reaching a preliminary memorandum of understanding that would formally extend the fragile ceasefire between the countries.

It would also aim to gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz and set a timeline for further negotiations on nuclear issues.

While the US president has indicated progress is being made, a deal has not been signed yet.

"The danger is not the total collapse of diplomacy," Dr Kreig said.

"It is hollow diplomacy: talks that continue, messages that pass, but no negotiator is allowed to concede on the key issues.

"From Washington's point of view, that means any signal coming from Pezeshkian or Araghchi has to be treated cautiously. The real red lines appear to sit with Vahidi and the IRGC military council.

"Unless they decide that economic and strategic pressure now outweighs the benefits of defiance, any deal is likely to be narrow, tactical and reversible."