Seven Ambiguities in the Handwriting Attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei

The image, first published by IRGC media and then by the rest of the Islamic Republic’s media, is presented as handwriting by Mojtaba Khamenei addressed to Seyyed Majid Mousavi, commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force. At first glance, it appears to be a brief, friendly note. But two questions arise:

Is this a personal, friendly message, or an official command order?

If it is an official order, how was it registered, issued and circulated through military channels?

This examination proceeds on the assumption that Mojtaba Khamenei is alive and in sufficiently good health to write and make decisions, and that the published handwriting is authentic. The point, therefore, is not to prove forgery, but to consider the ambiguities that remain even if the document is genuine.

1—The date it was written and published

The handwriting is dated 10 Mordad 1405, but was published weeks later, on 31 Shahrivar. At a time when Pezeshkian was travelling to the United Nations, this raises the question: why was a letter addressed to the commander of one of the IRGC’s most sensitive forces, weeks later, selected as the new Leader’s first handwritten message to be published after months?

2—From clerical language to an operational order

The letter opens with expressions such as ‘my mujahid and valiant brother’, ‘may God protect and support him’, and ‘after greetings and salutations’, giving it the tone of a friendly, clerical note. But then the tone suddenly changes:

‘As for the supply chain, God willing, efforts should continue, and reports on it should be regularly conveyed to me.’

This sentence is operational and directive in nature, after which the text returns to personal advice about looking after the recipient’s life and that of ‘all the brothers’. Are we looking at a personal message with an operational order inserted in the middle, or an official order written in personal language?

3—What was the earlier report?

The writer says that he has ‘already’ received the report that was submitted, and then asks for regular reports in future. The letter therefore appears not to mark the beginning of the communication. What was the earlier report, who prepared it, and through what channel did it reach Mojtaba Khamenei?

4—A ‘supply chain’ for what?

The letter does not specify what the ‘supply chain’ relates to. Since the recipient is the commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, there is no evidence to attribute it to missiles, drones or any particular equipment. But it is reasonable to ask what matter was so important that continued efforts and regular reports on it were requested.

5—The chain of command

The Commander-in-Chief can request reports directly from military commanders; direct communication does not in itself prove a breach of the chain of command. But the Aerospace Force has an organisational hierarchy within the IRGC and the armed forces. How was reporting ‘regularly to me’ conducted alongside the commander-in-chief of the IRGC, the General Staff and the Office of the Commander-in-Chief—and does this mean that other commanders were not trusted?

6—Registration and classification

In the published image, no registration number, registry stamp or visible classification marking can be seen. It is possible that the handwritten note itself had no number and was issued with a formal, numbered letter; there have been examples of this procedure in the past. But if this was an operational order, the question is: where was its receipt and issuance recorded?

Article 26 of the Law on Punishment of Crimes by Armed Forces establishes rules concerning the disclosure of classified military information and documents. Note 3 to the same article assigns responsibility for drawing up instructions on identifying, classifying and reclassifying such documents, and on how they are to be kept, to the General Staff of the Armed Forces, subject to approval by the Commander-in-Chief. Security classifications such as ‘Confidential’, ‘Highly Confidential’, ‘Secret’ and ‘Top Secret’ are also recognised.

This law does not prove that this particular handwriting necessarily had to be classified; however, it raises questions about the security status of reports concerning the ‘supply chain’.

7. A different sheet of paper

The sheet published under the heading ‘Office of the Supreme Leader’ has a patterned background. A pattern is usually printed on glossy paper, but its different appearance is visible.

Is this the official format for letters from the Leader or his office? Is there an independent, earlier example of the same letterhead? And if this text was a military order, what features would the version officially entered into administrative circulation have had?

None of these seven ambiguities alone disproves the document’s authenticity. Together, however, they raise an even more important question: if this handwriting is an authentic official order, where are its registration and notification records, reporting channels and supporting documents?

Sometimes, what is absent from a document matters as much as what is written on it. And ultimately, this shows another deception intended to prove that he is Commander-in-Chief and alive.