
If Iran's Khamenei Falls, What Would Replace Him?
Israel increasingly appears eager to oust the clerical leadership that has ruled Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution but is taking a gamble given the Iranian opposition is divided and there is no guarantee new rulers would be any less hardline, analysts say.
By striking targets other than nuclear or ballistic facilities, such as Iran's IRIB broadcaster, expectations have grown that Israel has goals beyond degrading Iranian atomic and missile capabilities and eyes removing supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
But while President Donald Trump has warned "we know" where Khamenei "is hiding", what would follow his removal after over three-and-a-half decades in power is shrouded in uncertainty and risk.
European leaders are haunted by the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO-led intervention in Libya in 2011.
They resulted in the removal of dictators Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi but also in years of bloody mayhem in both countries.
"The biggest mistake today is to seek regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos," French President Emmanuel Macron said at the end of the G7 summit in Canada.
"Does anyone think that what was done in Iraq in 2003... or what was done in Libya the previous decade was a good idea? No!" Macron said.
Analysts say ousting Khamenei and his fellow clerical leaders risks creating a vacuum that could be filled by hardline elements in the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) ideological force or the Iranian military.
"Israel's strikes seem more focused on regime change than non-proliferation," said Nicole Grajewski, fellow at the Carnegie Endowment.
"Of course Israel is targeting ballistic missile and military related facilities but they are also targeting leadership and symbols of the regime like the IRIB," she told AFP.
"If the regime were to fall, the hope would be for a liberal and democratic government.
"However, there is a strong likelihood that other powerful entities like the IRGC could emerge as the replacement," she said.
Among the highest-profile opposition figures is the US-based Reza Pahlavi, the son of ousted shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
He has declared that the Islamic republic is "on the verge of collapse", accusing Khamenei of "hiding underground" like a "frightened rat".
Pahlavi has long called for the restoration of the warm relationship that existed between his late father and Israel, to reverse the Islamic republic's refusal to recognise the existence of Israel.
Monarchists would like such a rapprochement to be termed the "Cyrus Accords" after the ancient Persian king credited with freeing the Jews from Babylon.
But Pahlavi is far from enjoying universal support inside Iran or among exiles.
The nationalism of supporters and his ties with Israel are divisive, especially after he refused to condemn the Israeli air strikes on Iran.
Another major organised group is the People's Mujahedin (MEK), whose leader Maryam Rajavi told the European Parliament on Wednesday: "The people of Iran want the overthrow of this regime."
But the MEK is despised by other opposition factions and regarded with suspicion by some Iranians for its support of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war.
"Part of the challenge in thinking about alternatives to the Islamic Republic in case it collapses is that there is no organised, democratic alternative," said Thomas Juneau, professor at the University of Ottawa.
He said that while Reza Pahlavi is the opposition leader "who has by far the most name recognition both in and out of Iran", his supporters "tend to exaggerate his support inside the country".
"The only alternative -- and this is among the worrying scenarios -- is a coup d'etat by the Revolutionary Guards or changing from a theocracy to a military dictatorship."
Analysts also warn that a potential -- and often overlooked -- factor for future instability could be Iran's complex ethnic make-up.
Large Kurdish, Arab, Baluch and Turkic minorities co-exist alongside the Persian population.
"There will also be an effort to capitalise on ethnic divisions by hostile countries," said Grajewski.
Analysts at the US-based think tank Soufan Center said that with the survival of the Iranian regime now viewed as a "strategic failure", the prospect of an "Iraq 2.0" is looming.
"The post-regime-change scenario remains unpredictable and could trigger regional destabilisation on a scale greater than Iraq, with global ramifications," they said. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been Iran's supreme leader since 1989 AFP It remains unclear what would replace the system led by Khamenei AFP Reza Pahlavi is among the most prominent opposition figures AFP The Islamic revolution ousted the father of Reza Pahlavi (L) AFP
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


DW
an hour ago
- DW
Russian threat sees Eastern Europe bring back land mines – DW – 06/29/2025
Five out of six countries along the border with Russia and Belarus plan to secure their borders with land mines, aiming to protect NATO's eastern flank from a possible attack. But the plan is highly controversial. Since the start of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine in February 2022, there has hardly been a more pressing issue for NATO than the defense of its eastern borders. Over the past three years, five of the six NATO countries that share a border with Russia or Belarus — Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland— have already made significant investments to better secure these borders, for example with fences and surveillance systems. But now, a new plan is in the works: land mines. Those five NATO countries recently announced their withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention, the 1997 treaty which bans anti-personnel mines worldwide and prohibits their use, production and transfer. Only Norway, which shares a nearly 200-kilometer (124-mile) border of almost 200 kilometers with Russia, wants to stick to the treaty. Such mines are highly controversial, as they can be a danger for both soldiers and civilians. Uncleared mines remain a long-term threat after the end of a conflict: In 2023, nearly 6,000 people worldwide were killed or injured by land mines. Some 80% of the victims were civilians, including many children. Clearing these explosive devices is dangerous, expensive and extremely time-consuming. According to the nongovernmental organization Handicap International, 58 countries around the world and other areas are still contaminated with land mines, even if some of the underlying conflicts ended decades ago. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video From the end of 2025, these five NATO countries could restart the production and storage of anti-personnel mines near the border. In case of an emergency, these mines would then be deployed quickly. While 164 countries worldwide have signed the Ottawa Convention, 33 have not. In addition to the major powers US and China, this includes Russia. In fact, the Kremlin has by far the world's largest stockpile of anti-personnel mines, with an estimated 26 million. Many of these are already being used in Ukraine. From Finnish Lapland in the north to the Polish province of Lublin in the south, the border between the five NATO states and Russia and Belarus is around 3,500 kilometers (2150 miles) long. Most of these areas are sparsely populated and densely forested, making them difficult to monitor the area. Nevertheless, there is great concern about a possible Russian attack on NATO territory. According to a report in the British newspaper , NATO experts are already analyzing which areas could be targeted. The aim of the NATO countries is to maximize deterrence: together with other border security measures, the mines are intended to inflict such heavy losses on the advancing enemy in the shortest possible time that Moscow would refrain from a prolonged war. Several million mines and other concealed explosives would likely be necessary to effectively protect the long border. Large areas would become uninhabitable for decades, and the potential damage to people and the environment is almost impossible to predict. David Blair, foreign correspondent for , described the plan as a new, explosive "Iron Curtain," alluding to the heavily guarded border between NATO and the Warsaw Pact states during the Cold War. In addition to mines, the eastern NATO states have already initiated many other measures, erecting or reinforcing border fences and walls, installing modern surveillance and early warning systems and strengthening troop contingents. Some of the countries are also planning to deploy drone defense systems along the border, and deepen irrigation systems so that they can be used as trenches in an emergency. They also aim to plant trees along important roads to provide camouflage for civilians and soldiers. Lithuania, squeezed between the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic coast and Belarus in the east, is particularly vulnerable. A narrow, 65-kilometer land connection — the Suwalki Gap — links the Baltic states and Poland, making the area a likely target for a initial Russian attack. Vilnius, therefore, is planning to invest around €800 million ($937 million) in the production of new land mines in the coming years. Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakaliene has defended the strategy, speaking of the "existential threat" to her country. Russia has increasingly manufactured mines in recent years, she explained, while Europe had destroyed its own stockpiles under the terms of the Ottawa Convention. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Eva Maria Fischer, head of advocacy at Handicap International Germany, believes the land mine plan is a dangerous and worrying development. "Of course, the security concerns of the Eastern European states may be justified in the current unstable international context," Fischer said in March, when Poland and the three Baltic states first announced their plans to withdraw from the treaty. "However, lasting security cannot be built on weapons that kill indiscriminately, remain in the ground long after the end of a conflict and continue to maim civilians and destroy livelihoods," she added. "There are alternatives to defending a country. These may seem more expensive, but they are not when you consider the enormous follow-up costs of using anti-personnel mines."


DW
14 hours ago
- DW
Budapest Pride: Many thousands of marchers defy police ban – DW – 06/28/2025
Tens of thousands of people marched in the streets of the Hungarian capital in the face of a police ban and government hostility. Attendees risk a fine and organisers could face a one-year prison sentence. Tens of thousands LGBTQ+ rights supporters took part in the Budapest Pride march on Saturday, in defiance of a police ban and threats from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. "We believe there are 180,000 to 200,000 people attending," Pride president Viktoria Radvanyi told the AFP news agency. "It is hard to estimate because there have never been so many people at Budapest Pride." Orban has restricted the rights of the LGBTQ+ community over the past few years, and his party's lawmakers passed a law in March allowing the ban of Pride marches, justifying it by claiming a need to protect children. However, Budapest Mayor Gergely Karacsony declared the Pride parade a municipal event, arguing that this designation exempts it from the assembly law and renders the police ban invalid. The annual event has now come to symbolize resistance to a general repression of civil society in Hungary under the nationalist government of Orban, which is facing a growing challenge from center-right opposition leader Peter Magyar's Tisza party ahead of elections next year. "This is about much more, not just about homosexuality,...This is the last moment to stand up for our rights," Eszter Rein Bodi, one of the marchers, told the Reuters news agency. More than 30 embassies have also voiced support for the march, which was due to be attended by European Commissioner for Equality Hadja Lahbib and about 70 members of the European Parliament. Ahead of the parade European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has called on Hungarian authorities not to block the march. "Our Union is one of equality and non-discrimination," von der Leyen wrote in a statement. She called these "core values" that "must be respected at all times, in all Member States." Anyone attending the march, however, risks being accused of a misdemeanor, while organizing such an event could carry the penalty of a one-year jail sentence, according to a letter sent to some foreign embassies in Budapest by Justice Minister Bence Tuzson. The so-called child-protection legislation that allowed the ban to be imposed also allows police to hand out fines and to use facial recognition technology to identify attendees. Over the past decade, Orban's government has frequently been at loggerheads with the EU over its increasing repression of civil liberties and press freedoms under the guise of protecting "Christian" values. The ban on the Pride march is being seen by opponents as part of a wider crackdown on democratic freedoms ahead of next year's elections, at which Orban's government is expected to face a stiff challenge from Magyar, whose party has been leading in opinion polls. The Tisza party, while avoiding taking a strong position on gay rights issues, nonetheless called on the government to protect anyone attending the march. "Peter Magyar has called on the Hungarian authorities and police to protect the Hungarian people this Saturday, and on other days as well, even if it means standing up against the arbitrariness of power," its press office said. Magyar himself has not planned to attend.


Local Germany
19 hours ago
- Local Germany
How securing rights through citizenship has become 'increasingly fragile'
The first Global State of Citizenship report, by the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, analyses citizenship laws in 191 countries in 2024. Researchers found that "with the growing number of armed conflicts and incidence of terrorism worldwide, many countries have introduced provisions for withdrawing the citizenship of a person on the basis of national security grounds.' Over a third of countries, including many European ones, 'can now strip a person of their citizenship when their actions are seen as disloyal or threatening to state security,' the report says, and the trend has been expanding. The practice is linked to an 'increasing securitisation of citizenship' since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 in the USA. Between 2000 and 2020, 18 European countries put in place measures to deprive persons of citizenship because of national security or to counter terrorism. Before 2001, these measures were 'virtually absent', the report says. Recently, the Swedish government commissioned an inquiry on the revocation of citizenship from individuals threatening national security . Germany's coalition parties discussed this option for 'supporters of terrorism, antisemites, and extremists'. Hungary also amended the constitution to allow the temporary suspension of citizenship because of national security. Middle East and North Africa are other regions where these policies have expanded, the report says. Advertisement Ways to strip citizenship The report identifies four ways in which citizens can be stripped of their status on security grounds. Nearly 80 per cent of countries have rules covering at least one of these situations. In 132 countries around the world, and two thirds of European states, citizenship can be removed for disloyalty or for acts that threaten national security, such treason, espionage, trying to overthrow a government or terrorism. Such rules exist in Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK. In 89 countries, however, this rule concerns only to people who naturalised, not those who acquired citizenship by birth. Another reason that can lead to the stripping of citizenship is having committee serious criminal offences, which typically involves having been sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period. These rules exist in 79 countries but only a few in Europe. In 70 countries, citizenship can be removed for serving in a foreign army and in 18 this measure concerns only people who acquired citizenship by naturalisation. In Europe, 40 per cent of countries – including France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Estonia, Turkey, Belarus and Bosnia Herzegovina – can remove citizenship under certain conditions for having served in another army. Latvia, one of the countries that can revoke citizenship for such reasons, changed the law in 2022 to allow its citizens to work with the Ukrainian military forces. Citizenship can also be removed for providing non-military services to another state, such as being elected in a public office, working for certain agencies or just in the civil service. Such rules exist in 75 countries around the world and some in Europe too, including France, Greece and Turkey. Advertisement People naturalised more at risk Luuk van der Baaren, co-author of the report, said at the presentation of the study that 'these developments indeed raise an important question as to what extent is citizenship still a secure legal status'. The data also shows that 'a large share of the citizenship stripping provisions are discriminatory in nature, as they only apply to specific groups, particularly citizens by naturalisation'. This is to prevent that a person remains stateless, but it means that 'citizens by birth have a secure legal status, while those who acquired citizenship later in life do not,' he added. Losing citizenship may not only affect the personal security and life opportunities, but also that of dependants, the report says, as in 40 per cent of countries citizenship deprivation can extend to children. Other ways of losing citizenship There are other ways, intentional or not, to lose citizenship, according to the report. The most common, is to have withdrawn because it was acquired in a fraudulent way. Such rules exist in 157 countries. 156 states have also rules on how to voluntarily renounce citizenship, usually with provisions to ensure that a person does not end up stateless. In 56 countries, people can lose their citizenship if they acquire another nationality, and in 55 this may occur by simply residing abroad. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'everyone has the right to a nationality', but four million people in the world are stateless 'because their citizenship remains denied or unrecognised,' the report continues. On the other hand, 35 countries do not allow people to renounce citizenship, or make this impossible in practice. Advertisement Unequal rights The report also looks at ways to acquire citizenship and finds 'highly unequal pathways'. The most common naturalisation requirement knowledge. Less common are economic self-sufficiency, civic or cultural integration, language or citizenship tests, and renunciation of other citizenships. On residency requirements, Americas and Western Europe have the more inclusive measures. Citizenship in European countries is also regulated via the European Convention on Nationality, under which the residence requirement cannot exceed 10 years. In 15 countries the wait is longer than 10 years: Equatorial Guinea (40 years), United Arab Emirates (30), Bahrain (25), Qatar (25), Bhutan (20), Brunei (20), Eritrea (20), Oman (20), Chad (15), Gambia (15), Nigeria (15), Rwanda (15), Sierra Leone (15), St. Kitts and Nevis (14), and India (11).