☣️ The Islamic State

The remarks attributed to Mohammad-Bagher Kharrazi have generated a political interpretation far more serious than an ordinary dispute over policy or ideology. The central concern is the apparent advocacy of an alternative governing structure operating alongside, or potentially replacing, the existing constitutional order.

Describing such a project as the “official opening of a branch of the Islamic State” is a political characterisation rather than a literal description of an established institution. Nevertheless, the comparison reflects concerns about the creation of a parallel system of authority in which political legitimacy derives not from constitutional institutions, elections or established law, but from an ideological and religious conception of government.

This distinction is important. A political movement may advocate a more religious form of government without necessarily constituting a terrorist organisation. However, when proposals involve replacing existing institutions with a self-defined religious authority, mobilising supporters to exert pressure on state institutions, or presenting an alternative governmental structure as already prepared, the language of a “parallel government” becomes particularly significant.

The controversy is also not entirely new. Kharrazi has previously advocated an expansive vision of political rule. In 2010, international reporting described his proposal for an “Islamic United States” extending across a large part of the Middle East and Central Asia. At the time, reporting also stressed that his views did not represent the official position of the Iranian government.

More recently, reports circulating in August 2026 have attributed to him claims concerning a prepared “shadow government”, extensive plans for transforming the existing political system into an Islamic government, and a proposed mobilisation of supporters around state ministries. These reports have intensified debate over whether the rhetoric represents merely an ideological factional position or an attempt to formulate an alternative mechanism of political power.

The phrase “opening an official branch of the Islamic State”, therefore, can be understood as a warning about the direction and logic of the proposed political model: the replacement of institutional government with an ideologically defined authority claiming a superior religious mandate. Whether that comparison is justified ultimately depends on the precise content, organisational structure and practical intentions behind the proposals.

What makes the remarks politically consequential is not simply their religious vocabulary, but the possibility that parallel authority could become a substitute for constitutional authority. If such a model were implemented, it would represent a fundamental transformation of the relationship between state institutions, political legitimacy and religious power—not merely a change of government policy.