Debate over the limits of the legislative and executive authorities in Iran has resurfaced following a letter from Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf to President Masoud Pezeshkian. In it, he objected to aspects of a government decision extending deadlines set out in laws and regulations because of wartime conditions, and called for the necessary action to be taken and for him to be informed of the outcome.
The objection comes amid a political scene that extends beyond differences between parliament and the government. Ghalibaf’s firm oversight of executive decisions coincides with his cooperation with Pezeshkian on negotiations. The parliament speaker had also previously called on the government to follow the legislative route to address the effects of the war, rather than relying solely on decisions issued by the Council of Ministers.
Decision extending deadlines until 22 September
The Council of Ministers approved a decision on 29 July 2026 addressed to executive bodies concerning deadlines set out in laws and regulations, after the competent authorities had extended some of them because of wartime conditions. The decision covered deadlines that had expired or were due to expire, and extended all of them until 22 September.
The decision was notified to the relevant authorities on 5 August, as part of a government effort to facilitate the management of business and procedures affected by the war. The extension did not remain merely a general provision: the Trade Promotion Organisation of Iran relied on it in a circular extending, until the end of the same period, the suspension of a requirement linked to the chronological order of import application registrations and the issuing of warehouse receipts.
But Ghalibaf’s letter did not address the Trade Promotion Organisation of Iran’s circular, nor did it order its cancellation. The objection focused on the legal basis of the Council of Ministers’ decision and the limits of the government’s authority to amend deadlines based on laws or regulations, not all of which fall within its direct powers.
Ghalibaf challenges the legal basis
The letter is dated 20 September and took the form of a legal opinion sent by Ghalibaf to Pezeshkian after the body responsible for reviewing the conformity of government decisions with the law examined the Council of Ministers’ decision. The objection was based on the mechanism linked to Articles 85 and 138 of the Iranian Constitution, which regulate oversight of government decisions and their compatibility with the law.
Ghalibaf identified two grounds for objection. First, the government does not have the authority to change a deadline set by a law passed by parliament. Second, the broad wording of the government decision could cover deadlines set by other bodies, while the Council of Ministers has no power to amend regulations issued by those bodies.
The parliament speaker asked the Iranian president to take the necessary action and inform him of the outcome, explaining that the part covered by the objection would lose its effect after the legally prescribed one-week deadline expired if the government did not remedy the violation. The letter does not declare the entire government decision void, but focuses on the part deemed contrary to the law. The letter was published after the extension period ended on 22 September.
Its text does not specify when it was notified to the government or what happened to procedures carried out on the basis of the Council of Ministers’ decision before the objection was published, including regulatory measures taken by executive bodies during the extension period. The call for the government to return to parliament to address the effects of the war was not new.
Earlier calls to involve parliament
In August, the chair of parliament’s Budget Committee said Ghalibaf had asked Pezeshkian to submit an urgent bill amending the budget law to reflect the new circumstances, confirming that parliament was ready to review it quickly. At the same time, the developments do not reflect a direct political split between Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian on all issues.
MP Ruhollah Lak Aliabadi said during September that Ghalibaf had faced criticism over his participation in the negotiating team, while Pezeshkian had also been criticised. He recounted that Ghalibaf objected when one MP raised the issue of questioning the president’s eligibility. This was an account of an exchange inside parliament, not an official position endorsed by the chamber.
Pezeshkian’s chief of staff, for his part, spoke of cooperation between the president and the parliament speaker on negotiations. After the objection letter was published, Ghalibaf praised Pezeshkian’s remarks before the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, reflecting continued agreement between them on some issues despite the legal disagreement over the government’s powers.
Researchers play down the extent of the political rift
Morteza Shokri, a faculty member at Allameh Tabataba’i University in Tehran, said the letter appeared, in its form and legal nature, to be a routine exercise of parliamentary oversight, adding: “I see this specifically as a delineation of the limits of authority rather than a political rift.”
Shokri explained that defending legislative authority unites most currents within parliament, while MPs differ over the degree of flexibility that should be granted to the government during the war. He said the core of the disagreement concerned the mechanism being used: should the government submit a bill and obtain parliament’s approval, or can it address the issue through a decision by the Council of Ministers?
According to Shokri, there is not necessarily a contradiction between Ghalibaf’s objection to an executive decision and his cooperation with Pezeshkian in negotiations. Political coordination can continue alongside parliament’s oversight role and its insistence on its legislative powers. Former politician Mohammad Ali Abtahi agreed that the dispute was limited, describing the differences as temporary rather than structural and saying they did not amount to a crisis in running the country during wartime conditions.
He said parliament was defending its powers, while the government was defending its interests and the way it managed executive procedures. Abtahi said wartime conditions could strengthen the role of senior bodies, including the Supreme National Security Council, in dealing with some disputes.
But he distinguished between the legal objection to extending the deadlines and what he described as more serious political disagreements, linked to the memorandum of understanding in the negotiations and to hardliners in parliament opposing parties seeking a settlement. Abtahi warned that political disagreements linked to the negotiations could harm internal cohesion, saying there was an effort to contain them at the leadership level.
The government’s response to Ghalibaf’s letter, followed by parliament’s handling of any action it takes, remains the clearest indicator of the limits of the disagreement. Shokri, meanwhile, said that any shift in the two men’s differences into their positions on the negotiations would be a clearer sign that the dispute was expanding politically.
