Seven Ambiguities in the Handwriting Attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei S. Rouzbeh 2026-09-25 Is this the official format for the Leader’s written instructions or those of his office? Is there an independent, earlier example of this same letterhead? And if this writing was a military order, what were the details of the version formally entered into administrative circulation? S. Rouzbeh – The image first published by the IRGC media outlets, and then by the other media of the Islamic Republic, as the handwriting of Mojtaba Khamenei addressed to Seyyed Majid Mousavi, commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, initially appears to be a short, friendly note. But two questions arise: Is this a personal, friendly message, or an official command? If it is an official order, how was it registered, issued and circulated through the military? This examination proceeds on the assumption that Mojtaba Khamenei is alive and sufficiently well to write and make decisions, and that the published handwriting is genuine. The point, therefore, is not to prove that it is forged, but to consider the ambiguities that remain even if the document is authentic. 1 – The date of writing and publication The handwriting is dated 10 Mordad 1405, but it 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 chosen, weeks later, as the new Leader’s first piece of handwriting to be published after months? 2 – From religious seminary language to an operational order The letter begins with expressions such as “brother, mujahid and valiant”, “may God protect and strengthen him” and “after greetings and peace”, giving it the feel of a friendly, religious-seminary-style note. But the tone suddenly changes: “With regard to the supply chain, God willing, efforts should continue, and reports on it should be sent regularly to me.” This sentence is operational and directive in nature, and the text then returns to personal advice about looking after the recipient’s life and the lives 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 a personal tone? 3 – What was the earlier report? The writer says that he has “already” received the report that was submitted, and then asks for further reports to be sent regularly. So this letter does not appear to mark the beginning of the communication. What was the earlier report, who prepared it, and by what route did it reach Mojtaba Khamenei? 4 – What “supply chain”? 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 basis for attributing it to missiles, drones or any particular equipment. But it is reasonable to ask what matter was considered important enough for continued efforts and regular reports on it to be requested. 5 – The chain of command The Commander-in-Chief can request reports directly from military commanders; direct communication, in itself, therefore does not 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” carried out alongside the Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC, the General Staff and the Office of the Commander-in-Chief—and does this mean a lack of trust in the other commanders? 6 – Registration and classification The published image shows no registration number, registry-office stamp or visible classification marking. It is possible that the handwritten note itself had no number and was issued with an official, numbered letter; there have been examples of this practice in the past. But if this was an operational order, the question is where its receipt and issuance were recorded. Article 26 of the Law on Punishment of Armed Forces Offences sets out rules concerning the disclosure of classified military information and documents. Note 3 to that article places responsibility for drawing up instructions on identifying, classifying and reclassifying such documents, and on how they are to be kept, with the General Staff of the Armed Forces, subject to approval by the Commander-in-Chief. Classifications such as “Confidential”, “Highly Confidential”, “Secret” and “Top Secret” are also recognised within the security system. This law does not establish 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 piece of paper The sheet published under the heading “Office of the Supreme Leader” has a patterned background. Such patterns are usually found on glossy paper, but its different appearance is apparent. Is this the official format for the Leader’s written instructions or those of his office? Is there an independent, earlier example of this same letterhead? And if this writing was a military order, what were the details of the version formally entered into administrative circulation? None of these seven ambiguities, taken alone, rules out the document’s authenticity. But together they raise a more important question: if this handwriting is an authentic, official order, where are its record of registration and notification, its reporting trail and its supporting documents? Sometimes, what is not on a document matters as much as what is written on it. And finally, this shows another deception intended to prove the Commander-in-Chief’s authority and that he is alive. Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/entry-1790358680008-f44ec5ff Please credit the author and link to this edition.