From the Six-Party Committee to the Leader.. Behind the Scenes of 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 by Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who holds absolute authority. 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 being later referred to as the "six-member committee." Its mission was to discuss the origin of the decision to negotiate, that is, 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 Iranian Supreme National Security Council.

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 its presidency was transferred to the former Secretary of the Council, Ali Larijani, who was also killed in an American attack. This sequence confirms that the committee is not merely an advisory framework subordinate to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but part of a broader system for making decisions related to national security, foreign policy, and negotiations with Washington.

As for the current phase, the spokesman 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 regarding the complete composition, unofficial sources circulated a composition that includes the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the Head of the Judiciary Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei, the Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary Guard Ahmad Vahidi, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Ali Abdollahi, the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and representative of the Leader Mohsen Rezaei, and the Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

However, it is important to distinguish between this six-member committee concerned with negotiations and the "six-member team" mentioned by Iranian President Masoud Bezhakian in other statements, which is considered a group comprising figures from the security agencies, parliament, and government that makes decisions in coordination among its members.

Available information indicates that the discussion revolves around two different mechanisms, 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 the secretariat 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 has the final word on strategic issues, especially when it comes to negotiations with the United States, the nuclear file, and major security matters.

The data and statements issued by Iranian officials indicate that sensitive decisions do not end at the six-member committee or even at the Supreme National Security Council, but rather require the approval of 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 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 final umbrella of the leader. 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 imply the existence of a decision-making center independent of the leader, but rather reflects a miniature 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 Witkoff and Jared Kushner. According to the American narrative, the communications were limited to conveying messages through intermediaries, while Tehran stated that the aim 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 transitioned to the parliamentary arena, as Mohammad Rashidi, a member of the Iranian Parliament's leadership, 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, alongside objections to the Foreign Ministry's performance in managing the American file.

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

From this perspective, the interrogation of Araqchi does not seem to be merely a questioning of the Foreign Minister, but a reflection of a deeper conflict over who defines the margins 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.

Thus, Araqchi's case may turn into a test of the limits of Iranian diplomacy's 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.