DEADLY Riots in Iran: IRGC Demands Iranian Leader to RESIGN

Iran’s Regime Supporters Turn on Their Own as Strait of Hormuz Statement Triggers Political Firestorm

Massive crowds have reportedly poured into the streets of Tehran, but this time the anger is not coming from anti-regime protesters. According to accounts circulating from inside Iran, the people shouting in the streets are regime loyalists — supporters who once defended the Islamic Republic through war, sanctions, and international isolation. Now, they appear furious for a very different reason: they believe their own government has just backed down.

The crisis erupted after Iran’s foreign minister announced that, in line with the ceasefire in Lebanon, commercial vessels would be allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during the remaining period of the ceasefire. On paper, it sounded like a diplomatic gesture. In practice, it detonated like a political bomb inside Tehran. For hardliners, IRGC-linked voices, and pro-regime activists, the statement looked less like strategy and more like surrender.

The Strait of Hormuz has long been one of Iran’s most powerful bargaining tools. A major share of global oil shipments passes through the narrow waterway, and Tehran has repeatedly used the threat of disruption as leverage against the United States and its allies. For years, Iranian officials warned that if pressure became unbearable, they could make the strait unsafe, drive up oil prices, and force Washington to compromise. But now, after weeks of military pressure, economic damage, and diplomatic uncertainty, Iran’s foreign minister appeared to publicly give away that leverage without securing a clear long-term peace deal.

.

.

.

That is why the backlash has been so intense.

Inside Iran’s political system, the announcement reportedly caused immediate confusion. IRGC-linked media began questioning whether the foreign minister had authority to make such a statement. State-aligned commentators warned that the message had created ambiguity at a sensitive wartime moment. Some officials insisted that the Strait of Hormuz remained under Iranian control, while others suggested commercial passage had been reopened. The result was a public contradiction between diplomacy and military reality.

For ordinary observers, it may look like mixed messaging. For the Islamic Republic, it looks far more dangerous: a regime speaking with multiple voices during a national crisis.

The problem is made worse by the continued silence of Iran’s new supreme leader. More than a month after his alleged rise to power, the public has still not seen him deliver a verified video address or heard his voice in a clear audio statement. Text-based messages have appeared, but critics argue that these are not enough to prove he is truly in command. In a political system built around supreme authority, silence at the top creates a vacuum — and in that vacuum, factions begin fighting for control.

That fight is now spilling into the open.

Some lawmakers have reportedly called for the impeachment of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, accusing him of making reckless and poorly timed statements during a sensitive period. One Iranian politician argued that if the country were not already in a wartime emergency, the foreign minister would already be facing serious consequences. Others warned that Iran was losing control of the “first narrative” — meaning the propaganda battle that often shapes public perception before facts are fully known.

The anger is not only about national pride. It is also about economics.

After the foreign minister’s statement, oil prices reportedly dropped sharply. For Iran’s hardliners, that was a disaster. High oil prices would have increased global pressure on Washington and given Tehran more room to bargain. Falling oil prices, by contrast, reduce the fear factor surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. If markets begin to believe that shipping lanes are stabilizing, Iran loses one of the few tools it still has to force concessions.

That perception of lost leverage is exactly what appears to have enraged regime supporters.

To them, the government promised resistance, sacrifice, and defiance. Instead, they watched officials signal that ships could move again while the United States continued its naval blockade and pressure campaign. U.S. Central Command reportedly stated that the blockade would continue regardless of Iran’s announcement, making the foreign minister’s statement look even weaker in the eyes of domestic critics. President Trump also repeated the message that Washington still held the stronger position.

For hardliners, the conclusion was devastating: Iran gave ground, but America did not.

The parliament speaker then attempted to push back, declaring that the Strait of Hormuz would not remain open under continued U.S. pressure and that passage would depend on Iranian authorization. He insisted that the rules of the strait would be decided “in the field,” not through social media statements. But that only deepened the impression of chaos. If the foreign minister says one thing, the parliament speaker says another, IRGC-linked media says a third, and the supreme leader remains silent, who is actually running the country?

That question now hangs over Tehran like a storm cloud.

Reports that several vessels have already passed through more normal routes in the strait have added another layer of uncertainty. If those ships moved safely through areas previously described as dangerous, it raises questions about whether Iran’s threats of mines and total control were exaggerated. If the waters were never fully blocked, then Tehran’s leverage may have been weaker than its leaders admitted. If they were blocked but are now reopening, then the regime may be retreating under pressure.

Either interpretation is damaging.

Meanwhile, the propaganda battle has become increasingly frantic. Iranian-aligned accounts have reportedly circulated claims of dramatic military victories, including questionable stories about advanced U.S. aircraft being shot down. Such claims were widely mocked by critics, especially when U.S. officials stated that their aircraft had returned safely. In wartime, propaganda is expected. But when propaganda becomes unbelievable, it can backfire, making the regime look desperate rather than powerful.

The deeper issue is that Iran no longer appears to have one unified command center. Diplomats are trying to negotiate. Military factions are trying to preserve leverage. Parliamentarians are trying to protect themselves from public fury. Regime supporters are demanding answers. And above them all, the supreme leader — the one figure who could settle the dispute — remains unseen and unheard.

That silence may now be the most dangerous sound in Iranian politics.

If Tehran cannot clarify its position on the Strait of Hormuz, the crisis could widen. If the IRGC rejects the diplomatic line, negotiations may collapse. If politicians continue attacking one another, public trust inside the regime’s own support base may fracture further. And if the supreme leader remains absent, speculation about his condition and authority will only grow louder.

For now, Iran is facing a crisis on three fronts: military pressure from abroad, economic pressure from sanctions and disrupted oil flows, and political pressure from within its own ruling structure. The streets of Tehran are no longer only a symbol of opposition anger. They may now represent something even more alarming for the Islamic Republic: loyalists turning against the very officials they once trusted.

The regime spent years warning its enemies that the Strait of Hormuz was its ultimate weapon.

Now, that weapon may be slipping from its hands — and the fight over who lost it has only just begun.