From the Six-Party Committee to the Leader: Behind the Decision to Negotiate with Washington in Tehran

Listen to the article, the audio text is automatically generated by a machine system.

The structure of decision-making regarding negotiations with the United States in Iran reveals a multi-level system, starting from a six-member committee concerned with negotiations within the Secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council, passing through political, security, and military institutions, and ending with strategic and sensitive issues leading to the final decision of the Iranian leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, as the supreme jurist with absolute powers. While the full membership of the six-member committee has not been officially announced, unofficial accounts have mentioned specific names within it, at a time when the indirect communications conducted by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with the American delegation in New York sparked widespread political controversy, reaching the point of recording a request to interrogate him in parliament.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had previously revealed in statements that the structure of the committee began as the "nuclear committee," then transformed into the "negotiation committee," before later being referred to as the "six-member committee." Its mission was to discuss the origin of the decision to negotiate, namely whether to enter into negotiations at all, in addition to determining the principles and frameworks on which the negotiations would be based, with its summaries and decisions to be submitted to the Supreme National Security Council of Iran.

According to Araghchi, the committee was previously chaired by the former Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, who was killed in the American attack, and then the presidency passed to the former Secretary Ali Larijani, who was also killed in an American attack. This sequence confirms that the committee is not merely an advisory framework affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but part of a broader system for making decisions related to national security, foreign policy, and negotiations with Washington.

Currently, the spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Ismail Baqaei, confirmed the existence of a six-member committee within the Supreme National Security Council that handles files related to negotiations, and he also confirmed that Araghchi is a member of it, without officially announcing the names of all its members.

In the absence of an official announcement about the complete composition, unofficial sources circulated a composition that includes Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Head of the Judiciary Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei, Commander of the Revolutionary Guard Ahmad Vahidi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Ali Abdollahi, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and representative of the leader Mohsen Rezaei, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

However, it is necessary to distinguish between this six-member committee concerned with negotiations and the "six-member team" mentioned by Iranian President Masoud Bezhakian in other statements as a group that includes figures from the security apparatus, parliament, and government, making decisions in coordination among its members.

Available information indicates that there are two different mechanisms being discussed, despite the potential overlap between some figures in both.

Additionally, the position of Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council has seen successive changes over the past months; after Ali Larijani held the position, Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr briefly took over, before Mohsen Rezaei was appointed as Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

Despite the existence of these multiple levels of decision-making, the fundamental issue lies in determining which entity holds the final word on strategic issues, especially when it comes to negotiations with the United States, the nuclear file, and major security issues.

The data and statements issued by Iranian officials indicate that sensitive decisions do not end with the six-member committee or even the Supreme National Security Council, but rather require the approval of the Iranian Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, in strategic and sovereign files.

This means that the six-member committee can serve as a space for formulating options, discussing positions, and determining the framework for negotiations, while the highest political decision remains linked to the Supreme Leader's approval, especially in matters affecting national security or relations with the United States.

The importance of this role increases in light of the controversy that followed the transfer of leadership to Mojtaba Khamenei, accompanied by questions about the true center of decision-making in Iran, and whether major decisions are made within traditional state institutions or through limited circles that operate in coordination with them and under the Supreme Leader's final umbrella. Recent analyses have shed light on the ambiguity surrounding the relationship between the six-member committee and the Supreme National Security Council and the structure of the new leadership.

From this perspective, discussing a "six-member committee" does not necessarily mean the existence of a decision-making center independent of the Supreme Leader, but rather reflects a smaller mechanism for managing files and coordinating between institutions, while major strategic issues remain linked to a higher level of decision-making.

The indirect communications that took place in New York on September 22, 2026, between the Iranian and American delegations, through intermediaries, sparked widespread controversy within Iran. The Iranian side was represented by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, while the American side included Special Envoy Steve Wittekov and Jared Kushner. According to the American narrative, the communications were limited to conveying messages through intermediaries, while Tehran stated that the goal was to convey its conditions regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

However, these communications quickly turned into an internal political issue, as critics of Araqchi, particularly from the hardline faction, questioned the level of prior coordination with them and whether they were conducted within the mandate granted to the foreign minister. On September 23, 2026, demands escalated for parliamentary action against him.

The dispute later moved to the parliamentary track, as Iranian Parliament Vice President Mohammad Rashidi confirmed on October 6, 2026, that a request to interrogate Araqchi had been registered in the parliamentary system, without it being referred to the Parliament's leadership at that time. The criticisms focus on accusations of taking steps without the necessary coordination or approval, and crossing what his critics consider red lines, along with objections to the performance of the Foreign Ministry in managing the American file.

However, the issue raises a broader dilemma, as Araqchi himself is a member of the six-member committee concerned with negotiations, which raises the question of the limits of the mandate granted to him: Were the New York communications part of the negotiating framework approved by the decision-making system, or were they an initiative that required additional approval?

Thus, the interrogation of Araqchi does not seem to be merely a questioning of the foreign minister, but a reflection of a deeper dispute over who determines the margin of Iranian diplomatic movement towards Washington: the Foreign Ministry, the six-member committee, the Supreme National Security Council, or ultimately the Iranian Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Consequently, Araqchi's file may turn into a test of the limits of Iranian diplomatic independence, and who holds the mandate to negotiate with the United States, and where the powers of each institution within a decision-making system end, where any step towards Washington becomes a national security issue, in addition to being a subject of internal political conflict.