The first hours of the widespread Israeli-American aggression on Iranian territory witnessed an event that shook the foundations of the region: the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, along with a number of senior military and political leaders. This targeting appeared to be an attempt to break the backbone of the Iranian regime by striking the head of the pyramid directly, at a time when columns of smoke rose over Tehran, announcing a new phase of open conflict.
In Washington, US President Donald Trump did not hide his enthusiasm for this development, describing the moment as a 'moment of freedom' for the Iranian people, and even went further by expressing his desire to directly intervene in the selection of Khamenei's successor. However, the old dilemma arises about the extent to which the absence of a pivotal figure can undermine a regime deeply rooted in complex military and ideological institutions, whose survival does not depend on a single individual.
On the ground, the Iranian response to the assassination was not delayed, as sources reported that vital sites in Gulf countries and oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman were targeted, threatening to disrupt global energy supplies. This escalation did not stop at the Iranian borders but extended to ignite the Lebanese front, which slid into a comprehensive confrontation, accompanied by unprecedented Israeli evacuation orders for large areas in the southern suburbs, the south, and the Beqaa.
On the internal political front, Tehran quickly activated constitutional continuity protocols, with a temporary leadership council assuming the powers of the Supreme Leader, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, the head of the judiciary, and prominent religious figures. This council is expected to manage the country's affairs until the Assembly of Experts chooses a permanent successor within a legal period not exceeding three months, amidst anticipation of the Revolutionary Guard's role in resolving this issue.
Observers believe that the Iranian regime is not a 'one-man system' in the traditional sense, but rather an institutional system that includes the Revolutionary Guard, the Guardian Council, and the Expediency Discernment Council. These structures possess a high capacity to absorb major security shocks and may seek to turn the assassination incident into an opportunity to strengthen internal cohesion and rally around 'the banner' instead of the collapse that Washington hopes for.
In contrast, Trump's strategy is characterized by ambiguity, with his statements oscillating between calling for the overthrow of the regime and the possibility of negotiating with a new, more moderate leadership, which is known as the 'behavior change' model. Trump cited the Venezuelan model, where he previously expressed willingness to work with Vice President Delcy Rodriguez after Maduro's detention, suggesting that he might accept a settlement with factions within the Iranian regime.
Historically, the record of American failures in 'system engineering' haunts the 'moment of freedom' promises made by the White House, starting from Roosevelt's promises in North Africa in 1942 to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In the Iraqi case, George H.W. Bush's calls for an uprising in 1991 led to a great betrayal of the demonstrators, while George W. Bush's invasion ended with years of chaos, the rise of extremist groups, and exorbitant material costs.
Middle East experts warn that air power alone, no matter how precise and painful, rarely succeeds in changing political regimes without ground intervention or widespread military defections. As of now, there are no indications that the Iranian armed forces or the Revolutionary Guard are willing to abandon their loyalty to the regime, making the bet on a rapid fall of power a risky one.
Khamenei's absence, who ruled the country for 36 years, undoubtedly represents a major symbolic and practical loss, as he was the ultimate authority that balanced the conflicting currents within the state. But the religious establishment in Qom and the security networks that have accumulated over decades possess the experience that may enable them to overcome the vacuum, especially in the presence of a direct external threat that unites the internal front behind the interim leadership.
At the regional fronts, it appears that the Supreme Leader's assassination has accelerated the pace of war expansion, as Iran's allies in the region believe that targeting 'the head of the axis' requires a strategic response that goes beyond traditional rules of engagement. This explains Hezbollah's intense firepower in Lebanon and the waves of displaced people, putting the entire region on the brink of a volcano that could erupt at any moment.
Intelligence reports indicate that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been closely tracking Khamenei's movements before carrying out the strike on Saturday morning, reflecting an American desire to create a political 'shock and awe'. However, the scenes coming from Tehran, showing thousands of angry mourners, suggest that the shock may turn into fuel for the engine of revenge, complicating Washington's calculations in containing the conflict.
The American dilemma lies in the fact that Trump's political rhetoric always precedes the building of realistic plans for what happens after the fall of leaders, which has been repeated in previous experiences that led to counterproductive results. While Trump talks about destroying the nuclear program, the question remains about who will sign any future agreement if Iran enters a state of political chaos or a long civil war.
In this complex scene, the 'behavior change' hypothesis remains the most realistic in American decision-making circles, despite the revolutionary rhetoric surrounding the current administration's statements. The United States realizes that the human and material cost of overthrowing a regime the size of Iran would be many times what it paid in Iraq, which contradicts the 'America First' slogan raised by Trump.
In conclusion, 'post-Khamenei' Iran remains an open arena for all possibilities, between the resilience of ideological institutions and the slide into an internal power struggle fueled by external military pressure. But the only constant is that the region has entered a dark tunnel, where the assassination of leaders no longer guarantees the end of wars, but may merely be a spark to ignite wider, uncontrollable fires.
The distance between overthrowing a leader and creating an alternative is still wide, and American behavior oscillates between regime change and behavior change.
شارك برأيك
Iran Facing the 'Pyramid Vacuum': Will the Regime Collapse After Khamenei's Assassination?