Assassinating Iran's Supreme Leader a recipe for chaos
His statement, made during an interview, signaled that Israel now sees the elimination of Iran's leadership as a legitimate strategic goal. Netanyahu defended recent military operations as efforts to 'defang' Iran and likened Khamenei to a 'modern Hitler,' a comparison that underscores the gravity of the current escalation.
Israeli airstrikes have hit critical sites in and around Tehran, including the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) headquarters and major components of Iran's nuclear infrastructure at Fordow and Natanz.
In retaliation, Iran launched over 100 missiles into Israeli territory, with several striking civilian areas in Tel Aviv, killing at least 82 and injuring more than 300 at the time of writing. Israel's counterattacks have so far killed over 150 individuals in Iran, many of them military personnel stationed at nuclear and strategic installations.
This violent spiral is no longer confined to proxy battles or covert operations. It has escalated into a direct confrontation, with Israel now regarding the removal of Iran's top leadership as a viable course of action. These developments have pushed the question of leadership succession from theoretical speculation to an immediate political reality.
Iran's political system, though authoritarian and theocratic, has a constitutional succession process. Article 107 assigns the responsibility of appointing the Supreme Leader to the Assembly of Experts, a group of 88 clerics elected from a vetted pool.
This secretive body plays a decisive role in shaping Iran's leadership. The last succession in 1989, following Ayatollah Khomeini's death, saw senior clerics appoint Ali Khamenei, then a relatively obscure figure, based on his ideological alignment, institutional backing, and Khomeini's endorsement.
Today, the succession landscape is more uncertain. Khamenei, in power for over 35 years, has built a loyal network across the judiciary, military, and clerical ranks. Yet no official successor has been named, and no clear favorite has emerged from the Assembly of Experts. One frequently mentioned figure is his son, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Though not a grand ayatollah, Mojtaba is believed to exert considerable influence behind the scenes, particularly through ties with the IRGC. His potential rise is widely seen as a dynastic move, conflicting with the anti-monarchical ideals of the 1979 Revolution.
His religious credentials have drawn criticism within the clerical class, and his name alone has provoked resistance among reformist factions.
These succession debates are inseparable from the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Created to protect the Islamic Revolution, the IRGC has transformed into a powerful institution with wide autonomy, often functioning as a state within the state.
It commands over 125,000 active-duty personnel and operates its own intelligence and security apparatus. Economically, it controls major sectors through entities like Khatam al-Anbia and a vast network of affiliated foundations.
In the event of Khamenei's sudden death or assassination, the IRGC is likely to become the central force in maintaining regime stability. Its influence positions it to shape the succession process in favor of preserving the status quo. In recent years, former IRGC commanders have entered both parliament and the cabinet, extending their reach across all arms of government.
What appears as continuity on paper may not hold under the weight of public discontent. Iran is facing its worst economic crisis in over twenty years. Inflation remains above 40%, the rial has sharply devalued and youth unemployment is over 22%.
A 2023 IranPoll survey found that more than 70% of Iranians distrust the government's official narratives, and nearly 60% support fundamental political change. The 2022–23 'Woman, Life, Freedom' protests, sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini, were the largest since the 2009 Green Movement. Though the state quelled them through arrests and executions, the core grievances remain.
If a leadership vacuum emerges, these tensions could resurface. Unlike the relatively controlled transition of 1989, today's Iran is more divided, militarized and economically fragile. A successor without legitimacy or the ability to manage internal factions risks pushing the country into instability.
Historical precedent exists: the fall of Saddam Hussein led to Iraq's institutional collapse, sectarian violence, and the rise of the Islamic State. While Iran has stronger institutions and a longer tradition of centralized rule, it is not immune.
Ethnic minorities such as Kurds, Baluchs, and Azeris are already demanding greater autonomy. A prolonged power crisis could embolden them and fuel violent fragmentation
It is also likely that, in the absence of a strong leader, Iran's nuclear program would fall increasingly under the control of hardline military figures. This could result in a much more aggressive posture toward the West, rather than a retreat.
In such a scenario, diplomacy would become more difficult, and the potential for regional conflict would grow. Far from ending hostilities, Khamenei's assassination could inflame them beyond Israel's control.
To assume that the death of one man will dismantle an entire regime is a mistake that history has repeatedly exposed. Toppling a figure like Khamenei does not guarantee the emergence of a stable successor, let alone a more moderate or cooperative one.
It risks, instead, the collapse of an entire state apparatus, a power vacuum that could be filled by militia factions, radicalized clerics, or foreign actors. Such instability would have far-reaching consequences, disrupting global oil supplies, jeopardizing critical regional trade corridors and undermining existing nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
If the goal is to eliminate threats, replacing a centralized regime with chaos does the opposite. The Middle East has learned the hard way that toppling leaders is far easier than securing peace in the aftermath.
Rishab Rathi is a research assistant at the Centre of Policy Research and Governance (CPRG), leading the Conflict Studies vertical with a special emphasis on South Asia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
3 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Gaza ceasefire talks collapse as starvation crisis mounts
Efforts to end the relentless siege of Gaza have been set back by the abrupt end to peace talks in Qatar. Both the United States and Israel have withdrawn their negotiating teams, accusing Hamas of a 'lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'. US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff says it would appear Hamas never wanted a deal: While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people in Gaza State Department spokesman Tommy Piggott reads Steve Witkoff's statement on the collapse of the Gaza peace talks. The disappointing development coincides with mounting fears of a widespread famine in Gaza and a historic decision by France to formally recognize a Palestinian state. French President Emmanuel Macron says there is no alternative for the sake of security of the Middle East: True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine What will these developments mean for the conflict in Gaza and the broader security of the Middle East? The failure to reach a truce means there is no end in sight to the Israeli siege of Gaza, which has devastated the territory for more than 21 months. Amid mounting fears of mass starvation, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Gaza is in the grip of a 'humanitarian catastrophe.' He is urging Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law: Israel's denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored. According to the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, more than 100 people – most of them children – have died of hunger. One in five children in Gaza City is malnourished, with the number of cases rising every day. Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini says with little food aid entering Gaza, people are neither dead nor alive, they are walking corpses […] most children our teams are seeing are emaciated, weak and at high risk of dying if they don't get the treatment they urgently need. The UN and more than 100 aid groups blame Israel's blockade of almost all aid into the territory for the lack of food. Lazzarini says UNRWA has 6,000 trucks of emergency supplies waiting in Jordan and Egypt. He is urging Israel – which continues to blame Hamas for cases of malnutrition – to allow the humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The latest ceasefire proposal was reportedly close to being agreed upon by both parties. It included a 60-day truce, during which time Hamas would release ten living Israeli hostages and the remains of 18 others. In exchange, Israel would release a number of Palestinian prisoners, and humanitarian aid to Gaza would be significantly increased. During the ceasefire, both sides would engage in negotiations toward a lasting truce. While specific details of the current sticking points remain unclear, previous statements from both parties suggest the disagreement centres on what would follow any temporary ceasefire. Israel is reportedly seeking to maintain a permanent military presence in Gaza to allow for a rapid resumption of operations if needed. In contrast, Hamas is demanding a pathway toward a complete end to hostilities. A lack of mutual trust has dramatically clouded the negotiations. From Israel's perspective, any ceasefire must not result in Hamas regaining control of Gaza, as this would allow the group to rebuild its power and potentially launch another cross-border attack. However, Hamas has repeatedly said it is willing to hand over power to any other Palestinian group in pursuit of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. This could include the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which governs the West Bank and has long recognised Israel. Israeli leaders have occasionally paid lip service to a Palestinian state. But they have described such an entity as 'less than a state' or a 'state-minus' – a formulation that falls short of both Palestinian aspirations and international legal standards. In response to the worsening humanitarian situation, some Western countries have moved to fully recognize a Palestinian state, viewing it as a step toward a permanent resolution of one of the longest-running conflicts in the Middle East. Macron's announcement that France will officially recognize a full Palestinian state in September is a major development. France is now the most prominent Western power to take this position. It follows more than 140 countries – including more than a dozen in Europe – that have already recognized statehood. While largely symbolic, the move adds diplomatic pressure on Israel amid the ongoing war and aid crisis in Gaza. However, the announcement was immediately condemned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed recognition 'rewards terror' and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became. A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel – not to live in peace beside it. A Palestinian state is unacceptable to Israel. Further evidence was recently presented in a revealing TV interview by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who stated Netanyahu had deliberately empowered Hamas in order to block a two-state solution. Instead, there is mounting evidence Israel is seeking to annex the entirety of Palestinian land and relocate Palestinians to neighbouring countries. Given the current uncertainty, it appears unlikely a new ceasefire will be reached in the near future, especially as it remains unclear whether the US withdrawal from the negotiations was a genuine policy shift or merely a strategic negotiating tactic. Ali Mamouri is research fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
AllAfrica
a day ago
- AllAfrica
US and its allies unprepared to repel saturation missile attacks
Between June 13 and 24 Iran launched 574 missiles attacking Israel. Some of them got through, despite Israeli and US efforts to stop them. Until now we have lacked convincing data allowing some cogent analysis of the results of missile defenses. That information is partly supplied by a new study by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a Washington-based think tank that is pro-US defense and pro-Israel. There are some surprises. The biggest one is the role of THAAD operated by US personnel in Israel and in the Gulf. THAAD is the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. It is designed to intercept short-, medium- and long-range ballistic missiles. THAAD interceptors cost $12.7 million each, making them expensive, but not nearly as costly as the AEGIS SM-3 Block 2A interceptor that is priced at just under $28 million per shot. THAAD is a hit-to-kill, or kinetic kill, interceptor that does not use explosives. It has an operational ceiling of around 92 miles, so it is not capable of exoatmospheric intercepts (310 to 620 miles). Israel's high altitude interceptor, Arrow 3, is said to be capable of intercepts in the exoatmosphere. According to the JINSA report, in the June conflict THAAD intercepted 47.7 percent of all the missiles fired at Israel, an unexpectedly high proportion. In doing so, the US expended at least 14% of its total THAAD interceptor stockpile. JINSA says it will take Lockheed, which manufactures the THAAD interceptors, around eight years to replenish the US stockpile, assuming the rate of production is not significantly increased. Take Note: We only know the number of Iranian missiles shot down by THAAD (92). We do not know how many THAAD interceptors were launched to shoot down the Iranian missiles. The 14% figure represents the claimed kills, not the actual number fired. Thus the remaining inventory of THAAD interceptors may be smaller than stated in the report. There are a couple of important caveats. The first is that the US is supplying other countries with THAAD systems. Saudi Arabia has a THAAD system delivered from the United States and 50 interceptors. However, it has ordered 360 interceptors, which will take years to manufacture. Saudi THAAD personnel. Photo: Kingdom's Ministry of Defense The UAE reportedly has 192 THAAD interceptors, although it is not clear all have been delivered. The US also has THAAD systems in South Korea (where there are now reports North Korea is boosting its missile production) and in Hawaii, Guam and Wake Island. Given the Chinese missile threat and regional volatility, the US may have to beef up supplies for the Pacific. The alternative is to reply on AEGIS, a very expensive system that operates at sea and therefore is not capable of fully protecting US and allied bases in the region. The second problem is intercepting hypersonic missiles. Iran reportedly used some of these attacking Israel. China and Russia already have them (e.g., DF-17 with DF-2F hypersonic glide vehicles and Russia's Avangard and Oreshnik ballistic missiles, plus Kinzhal and Zircon). THAAD probably needs to have longer range and speed to counter hypersonic missiles, something that has been proposed (THAAD-ER) but not yet approved. Israel has Arrow 2 and Arrow 3, the latter able to operate in the exoatmosphere. In the recent conflict, Israel says it intercepted more than 200 Iranian missiles, Another 258 missiles were not intercepted because Israel determined they were not going to hit populated areas or critical infrastructure. THAAD intercepted 92 Iranian missiles. According to Israeli reports, that left 57 Iranian missiles that got through and did damage. What the information tells us is that more than half of Iran's missiles were inaccurate (for one reason or another). It tells us that Israel does not have an adequate missile intercept inventory or launcher capability. Apparently Israel recognizes this shortcoming, but it depends on US manufacturing to help fill the gaps. It also tells us that Israel cannot defend its territory without the United States. The great importance of THAAD for defending Israel is critical. The JINSA report does not take into account Iranian and other drones fired at Israel. However, that threat will also multiply in future. (Israel has Iron Dome and Iron Beam, and can also use its air force to shoot down drones,) Patriot also played a role in the conflict, mainly to defend al Udeid air base in Qatar. The Iranians fired 14 short and medium range missiles at the air base on the last day of the conflict, and the US was warned about the attack ahead of time by Iran. In response the US launched 30 Patriots and intercepted 13 out of 14 Iran's missiles. One missile got through and damaged a communications dome on the base. Before and after photos of damage at Al Udeid Air Base last month. Photo: Planet Labs In practice this means it takes at least two Patriot interceptors for every enemy missile fired. As is well known, the US is in short supply of Patriot, which the US, its allies and friends rely on for air defense. This has caused significant controversy in connection with supplies of Patriots for Ukraine. The Pentagon has made clear that stockpiles are at a critical level and it does not want to deplete them further in support of Ukraine. Instead, at President Donald Trump's initiative, Germany has agreed to supply Patriot interceptors (model unclear, as there are different Patriot interceptors, the most important PAC-3), but Germany does not have enough. The German Defense Minister, Boris Pistorius, is negotiating with his European counterparts, to 'find' the missiles Ukraine needs. Allegedly, Germany will pick up the bill for replacing them later., but the Germans now want US guarantees. The JINSA paper also points out that Israel destroyed some 250 Iranian missile launchers (only after they fired their missiles). This is a luxury that Ukraine, for example, does not have and it is a challenge for the US and its Pacific allies, because finding and destroying adversary launchers (e.g., potentially China's or Russia's) is a far bigger challenge than Iran. The US and Israeli ability to manufacture air defense missiles is inadequate against Russian, Chinese, Iranian and maybe North Korean factories' ability to produce ballistic missiles. What is true for the defense of Israel, supplementation of Israel's local air defenses with US assets, also is true for Europe and Asia. NATO has very limited air defenses, well below what Israel has but a need to protect a massively bigger territory. The United States' Asian allies Japan and South Korea also have limited air defenses, mainly relying on their own Patriot systems or on Patriot plus AEGIS in the case of Japan. Taiwan has Patriot PAC-3, but not enough systems or missiles. The US, at present, would find it extremely difficult to backstop NATO against a massive attack by Russia, or to support Japan and South Korea, let alone Taiwan, with de minimis stockpiles and too few systems. There is THAAD in Korea, but not in Japan or Taiwan. Japan even rejected AEGIS Ashore to protect its territory, although it does have four AEGIS-equipped ships. Taiwan publicly rejected THAAD, an incredibly foolish move. To make a long story short, the US and its allies are not well prepared against saturation missile attacks and don't have enough coverage to protect military installations, command and control centers, airfields, naval ports or even logistic centers and factories (putting aside attacks focused on critical infrastructure, as we see on a daily basis in Ukraine). It should be obvious that the US industrial base is not ready for the challenge, that there are not enough factories and that efficiency (understood in terms of output) is low. The Pentagon is still relying on ordering missile production from existing factories rather than really trying to reform the manufacturing infrastructure so we can match the output of Russia, China or even Iran. Stephen Bryen, a special correspondent to Asia Times and a former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, also previously served as executive director of the JINSA think tank. This article, which originally appeared in his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Taiwan donation vow to Israeli settlement is cynical and foolish
The cynicism is breathtaking. Or maybe it's just foolishness. With Taiwanese leader William Lai Ching-te and his minions at the Democratic Progressive Party, it's often hard to tell. Advertisement While Israel is busy committing genocide in Gaza, and Jewish settlers and the military are running rampant across the occupied West Bank, Taipei has pledged to donate to an Israeli settlement for a health project there. At least 964 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed between the start of the Gaza war in October 2023 and the middle of this month. About 1,400 Palestinian homes have either been demolished or face being torn down, according to the UN Human Rights Office. But rest assured the health project won't be serving Palestinians, nor has there been any pretence that it would. Now, Israel doesn't need the donation. The GDP per capita of Taiwan and that of Israel are comparable, with the island's only slightly higher. Couldn't Taiwan at least donate to some project inside Israel proper, and thus avoid any controversy? But that would be a waste of time for Israel. The whole point, of course, is to make Taipei donate inside the illegal military occupation! Why? Because the donation, if and when it is made, would be interpreted as Taiwan's tacit endorsement of the illegal Israeli occupation. Advertisement However, it would also be a direct breach of international law. The Israeli military occupation is universally recognised as illegal. A year ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion stating that all states must prevent trade and investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the unlawful occupation by Israel.
