It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control.
In my reading, the Buddha here was commenting on the subject of "self" rather than the subject of "control". He was not saying "control" is "self". He was saying if there was a "real self", this self could control itself.
If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define what "self" is.
"Self" is defined in SN 22.81 is an "assumption", "mental formation" & "ignorant misunderstanding".
There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.
"Self" is an underlying tendency (anusaya). Using scientific terminology, it can be said "self" is a survival instinct (i.e., a form of craving called craving to be). When the mind becomes anxious or lustful, these energies of anxiety & lust create ideas or thoughts in the mind of 'self' or 'identity'.
Thus Buddha taught the arising of 'self-view' is the 'arising of suffering' (SN 12.15; SN 5.10).
Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.
SN 5.10