The man reportedly being floated by the Trump administration as a possible interlocutor with Iran is also one of the regime’s most hardline figures — Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a longtime Revolutionary Guards commander, widely described by experts as a loyal “yes man,” with a record of threats against the United States and deep ties to the system’s inner circle.

That contradiction underscores the central question facing U.S. policymakers: Even if Washington is speaking to the “right people,” as President Donald Trump has claimed, can someone like Ghalibaf actually deliver?

“Ghalibaf doesn’t have an independent line. His strength is that he is a ‘yes man,’” said Beni Sabti, an Iran expert at the Institute for National Security Studies. He added, “If he is told to shake hands with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, he will do it. If he is told to escalate, he will. It is not about moderation, it is about who gives the orders.”

AS AIRSTRIKES RAIN DOWN ON THE IRANIAN REGIME, CAN A FRACTURED OPPOSITION UNITE TO LEAD IF IT FALLS?

Ghalibaf, 64, is a product of Iran’s security establishment.

He rose through the ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Iran-Iraq War, eventually becoming commander of the IRGC air force.

“He even completed flight training abroad, which was not unusual at the time, with France reportedly assisting at one stage. Until recently, he was still conducting training flights in France,” said Sabti.

He later served as Iran’s national police chief, overseeing internal security forces responsible for suppressing protests, including the 1999 student uprising, alongside Qassem Soleimani.

After transitioning into politics, Ghalibaf attempted to run for president multiple times but failed. He instead built his career through loyalty to the system, serving as Tehran’s mayor for more than a decade before becoming speaker of parliament in 2020.

“Ghalibaf went on to serve in senior national roles and is now speaker of parliament. He has consistently aligned himself with the supreme leader and follows directives rather than setting his own independent positions,” Sabti said.

“His name has also been linked to multiple corruption allegations, including misuse of oil revenues and sanctions evasion networks involving his family. His sons have reportedly been involved and are under sanctions,” Sabti said, adding, “There have also been public scandals involving family members traveling abroad and making luxury purchases, including widely circulated images of them arriving with numerous high-end Gucci suitcases.”

IRAN’S NEW SUPREME LEADER IS ‘HIS FATHER ON STEROIDS,’ EXPERTS WARN OF HARDLINE RULE

Ghalibaf’s wartime statements reflect a hardening tone inside Iran’s leadership.

He has rejected ceasefire terms, declaring Iran would continue fighting “until the enemy truly regrets its aggression.”

He has also warned that attacks on Iranian infrastructure would trigger retaliation across the region, including against energy targets.

At the same time, he has publicly denied any negotiations with the United States, calling reports of talks “fake news” and accusing Washington of manipulating markets.

In remarks aired on Iranian television on January 12, 2026, he warned that U.S. forces would face catastrophic consequences if they confronted Iran. “Come, so you can see what catastrophe befalls American bases, ships and forces,” he said, adding that American troops would be “burned by the fire of Iran’s defenders.”

In the same remarks, broadcast and translated by MEMRI, he described the U.S. president as “delusional and arrogant,” and framed Iran’s ideology as a growing global movement.

More recently, he escalated further. He warned that “the blood of American soldiers is the personal responsibility of Trump,” and vowed Iran would “settle accounts with the Americans and Israelis,” adding that “Trump and Netanyahu crossed our red lines and will pay the price.”

He has also threatened retaliation against regional energy infrastructure, signaling a willingness to expand the conflict beyond direct military confrontation.

“He’s considered relatively moderate in the current Iranian context, but he’s not the one calling the shots. He’s not the leader himself,” Danny Citrinowicz, Middle East, National Security and intelligence expert, told Fox News Digital that adding that Ghalibaf may serve as a channel to Iran’s leadership, but not as the ultimate authority.

“If you want to speak to someone in Iran, he’s probably the point of contact,” he said. “But he’s not deciding anything. Even if he wants to do something, he has to get approval from the IRGC and the supreme leadership.”

Sabti said that “Some point to periods during Rouhani’s presidency when he appeared to align with Rouhani and describe him as somewhat moderate, but that is misleading,” he said.

TRUMP SAYS IRAN WANTS TO TALK BUT WHO WILL LEAD AFTER KHAMENEI?

Analysts say the bigger issue is not Ghalibaf himself, but the system he operates within.

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said: “Those who see the ascendance of someone like Ghalibaf, who is an IRGC veteran, as extending power outside his traditional civilian role have missed how personality, not profession, has been the driving force in Iranian politics for decades. Those who focus on IRGC backgrounds in the Supreme National Security Council may also overlook that recent secretaries — Shamkhani, Larijani and Ahmadian — all had IRGC backgrounds.”

“The system today is more radicalized and decentralized,” Citrinowicz agreed. “It’s not one person. It’s multiple actors you need to coordinate with, which makes it much harder to negotiate.”

“I’m not saying it’s impossible, because this is still the Middle East, but it will be very difficult to reach an agreement with them, let alone one that reflects the same demands the U.S. was making before the war. There is no way they are going to agree to that,” he added.

Citrinowicz said the regime sees themselves as prevailing. “From Iran’s perspective, they are winning, not losing. They are using their strategic capabilities and effectively threatening a choke point in the global economy, namely the Strait of Hormuz. That only reinforces the radicalization taking place inside the regime. Under those conditions, they will be the ones making demands of Trump, not the other way around.”

Even if talks were to take place, he said, Ghalibaf would not be able to commit Iran without broader approval.

“The View” co-host Joy Behar demanded to know what the U.S. has accomplished in Iran on Wednesday and defended her support of the military during a sharp clash with guest co-host Abby Huntsman.

“I don’t want to take away from what our men and women have been doing over there, because what they’ve accomplished is incredible. And if we can deter Iran at all—,” Huntsman said.

Behar jumped in and asked, “What have they accomplished over there? Explain to me.”

“What have they accomplished? Well, I think any time we can deter Iran, whether it’s for another year, whether it’s for ten years,” Huntsman responded. “I think that’s a win for this country.”

OPERATION EPIC FURY DESTROYS IRAN’S NAVY AND CUTS MISSILE ATTACKS BY 90% IN ONGOING CAMPAIGN

Behar argued that former President Barack Obama had a deal in place with Iran and Trump tore it up.

“I think it’s really easy to sit here and say, ‘What has our military accomplished?’ It’s because of our military that we’re able to sit here and have these conversations and do a show like this,” Huntsman responded.

The liberal co-host then got defensive and said, “Don’t make it sound like I’m against the military; I’m not. All my uncles, my father — they all fought. So, don’t make it sound like that. I’m talking about this particular, as he calls it, ‘excursion’ into Iran. What have they accomplished so far?”

“We don’t know what the intelligence he got was. That’s the problem, they haven’t communicated that. What I do know,” Huntsman began as Behar said Trump and the word “intelligence” didn’t belong together in the same sentence.

Huntsman, a former host of the show, said, “Joy! What about wiping out their entire leadership?”

WHOOPI GOLDBERG ERUPTS OVER TRUMP’S IRAN STRATEGY, CLAIMS HE’S ‘SENDING PEOPLE IN TO LOSE THEIR LIVES’

“What, they got rid of one Ayatollah? They have another one who is just as bad,” Behar said.

Co-host Sunny Hostin also said that she didn’t know what the military has accomplished and argued there had been a lack of transparency coming from the Trump administration.

“Wait a second. I know what they have accomplished,” Behar interjected, laughing. “They have taken the Epstein files off of the front page. That is what they have accomplished.”

White House spokesman Davis Ingle told Fox News Digital in a statement that Iranian retaliatory attacks have declined by 90 percent.

“‘Joyless’ Behar is an extremely unlikeable, talentless hack with a poorly rated TV show who clearly suffers from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Operation Epic Fury continues to prove it is a resounding success which is destroying the rogue Iranian regime’s national security threat to the American people,” Ingle said. 

“Iranian retaliatory attacks have declined by 90 percent because the Department of War is destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. President Trump is working tirelessly every single day to ensure the American military continues to be the greatest, most powerful fighting force in the world that will crush our enemies and defend our great Nation,” he continued.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

Behar, a longtime critic of the president, said in January that she wanted her legacy to be that she helped get Trump out of office.

“I want my legacy to be that I helped get Trump out of office. That’s what I really care about,” Behar said in January on “Behind the Table”.

Imagine if, during World War II, the Germans had been able to pay millions of dollars to minor American celebrities to run pro-Nazi short films in U.S. movie theaters. It sounds absurd, but it is actually miniscule compared to what our enemies can achieve today through social media.

On Tuesday night, Alexis Wilkins, the girlfriend of FBI Director Kash Patel, dropped a stunning thread on X alleging that several high-ranking figures in the conservative politics orbit were engaged in a 22-month “foreign-linked influence network” attacking her and the Trump administration.

Wilkins convincingly purports to show that online campaigns in 2024 painting her as an Israeli spy were coordinated through foreign online accounts such as Russia Today. The detailed evidence she provides is confusing to laymen, but what it clearly shows is inorganic growth for the conspiracy.

This same network, she alleges, is operating to undermine the Trump administration’s military efforts in Iran by applying this inorganic pressure to American social media.

CHINA RACES AHEAD ON AI —TRUMP WARNS AMERICA CAN’T REGULATE ITSELF INTO DEFEAT

The FBI declined to comment on Wilkins’ post. But just two hours after it went up, X Head of Product Nikita Bier took to the platform to announce that, starting Thursday, the company would update monetization, the payments users receive, to give more weight to “impressions from your home region.”

In this key section of the statement, Bier admitted the reason for this change is to thwart foreign interference in our elections, writing, “While we appreciate everyone’s opinion on American politics, we hope this will disincentivize gaming the attention of U.S. … accounts.”

And, boy, has there been a lot of foreign gaming of late, which no doubt helped to spur the announcement.

IRAN NETWORKS SUFFER LOSSES AMID AIRSTRIKES, SHOWING DIGITAL EVOLUTION OF CONFLICTS

But at 2:30 a.m. Wednesday, X owner Elon Musk posted a message saying, basically, not so fast,. His message was in response to an account claiming to be an American living in France who could see their income stream decline by the move. Musk said the change would be delayed and reviewed.

Wherever the policy finally lands, it is very welcome news indeed that the platform is taking the threat of foreign information operations on American social media seriously.

Thus far, however, the focus of the reaction to this proposed change by X has gotten the priority exactly backwards, celebrating that foreign accounts would be barred from making money by obsessing on U.S. politics.

MIKE DAVIS: THE RULES GOVERNING LOCAL TV ARE OLDER THAN THE INTERNET. THAT’S INSANE

That is a benefit, but it pales in comparison to the other consequence of the proposal, which is that foreign foes will no longer be able to use bot farms to funnel millions of dollars to divisive American content creators.

When a Russian bot farm floods an anti-American post with 20,000 impressions and shares, it boosts the income of the account it is juicing, even if the creators themselves have no idea and think the growth is totally organic.

To return to our analogy, imagine if, in 1943, your radio was giving you a steady stream of Nazi-purchased German propaganda every night. The government would have shut it down, of course. But, online, that option doesn’t really exist.

BRETT VELICOVICH: IRAN BUILT A DRONE TERROR MACHINE — AMERICA JUST HACKED IT

At least not yet.

At that time, there were barriers and gatekeepers to protect Americans from foreign information operations. Today, there are virtually none, and it is an asymmetric information war.

Hopefully, Musk can find a way to implement this localization of monetization to crack down on enemy propaganda, but if he and the industry can’t close this open informational wound, then the government might have to.

AMERICA MUST POWER AI WITH SPEED AND DISCIPLINE — OR CHINA WILL DOMINATE

Recently, for example, X changed its platform to show the country of origin of its accounts, but this is easily overcome by foreign bots with VPNs. Again, a good instinct, but no ability to truly police the platform.

Musk is in a tough spot here. He doesn’t want to censor anyone, but he also doesn’t want X to be a bustling marketplace of foreign-funded anti-U.S. propaganda, and these proposed changes to localize the profits seem like a very good compromise.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Meanwhile, whether the industry can fix this problem itself or if more state regulation is needed, the government must investigate just what percentage of our political social media is pushed by foreign bots.

This must be done not to punish the social media companies, but to punish the foreign foes who are engaging quite literally in a form of cyberwarfare against our nation.

President Donald Trump ran on strong borders to keep out migrants, tariffs to keep out products that make us less competitive and voter ID to protect elections. Now, he must focus on a strong wall to protect American social media from our adversaries.

Put simply, if we cannot protect our information ecosystem, then we can’t protect anything.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAVID MARCUS