The covert operations carried out by Israeli intelligence, aimed at eliminating Iran’s military and political leadership, achieve their immediate objectives. However, they do not result in a change of the ruling regime of the Islamic Republic.
Alexandr Svaranc
The Strategy of Decapitation: Aims and Consequences
Bill Scher, Political Editor for the Washington Monthly, in his article ‘All the Ways Trump’s War on Iran Is Disastrous’, drawing on historical documents, pinpoints that the death of Khamenei would represent the first assassination of a head of state by the United States government since 1975, when the Church Committee uncovered five such plots, three of which ended up a success. In 1976, the United States ratified an international treaty prohibiting the assassination of heads of state, and President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning the involvement of the government in assassinations altogether. With minor amendments by his successors, this order remains in force today, though it is often interpreted in a broader fashion to justify strikes against terrorist leaders. Trump is now ignoring these legal precedents, without citing any imminent threat or emergency.
Bill Scher comes to the conclusion that ‘normal international relations’ are impossible when the head of one state can be killed whenever another head of state pleases.
Depriving an adversary of its leadership components can paralyze its defence or offensive capabilities, disorganize its resistance, and tilt the balance towards defeat. Military pressure at the front, combined with the removal of an enemy’s political leader, is intended not only to ‘behead’ the opponent but also to wreak havoc on the society, sow the sense of vulnerability, and fuel widespread dissatisfaction with the existing regime. In simple terms, by means of changing the ruling class, the other belligerent can secure military victory, compel the enemy to surrender, and achieve all the objectives of a military campaign. As a consequence, once hostilities begin, the political and military leadership of the adversary becomes a target for subversive operations by intelligence agencies, where the norms of international law are often rendered inoperative.
The United States and Israel, having ushered in a new phase of confrontation with Iran, have indicated the need for regime change in Tehran as one of the stated objectives. From their perspective, it is the Islamic regime that lies at the root of all the problems – its anti-Zionist stance, its nuclear and missile programmes – and its overthrow would supposedly ensure regional peace. However, as Bill Scher concludes, ‘normal international relations’ are impossible when the head of one state can be killed whenever another head of state sees fit.
A Chronicle of Assassinations: From Soleimani to Nasrallah
The beginning of a new wave of such operations against Iran was marked by the murdering of Quds Force commander Major General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad in January 2020. It was followed by a series of covert operations targeting IRGC generals and leaders of Shia militant organisations across the Middle East, including in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The deaths of the eighth President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, and several other officials in a helicopter crash on their way from Azerbaijan on 19 May 2024 have given rise to various theories, including the possibility of an act of terrorism orchestrated by foreign intelligence services. In July 2024, Israeli intelligence killed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, who came to Iran to attend the inauguration of President Masoud Pezeshkian. Two months later, in September 2024, the ‘long arm’ of Israeli intelligence eliminated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and in October of the upcoming year, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. This list has been regularly expanded with the names of senior IRGC officers, political leaders, and commanders of Shia militant units.
In June 2025, during the first hours of a twelve-day war, Mossad and the CIA reached a new peak in their covert operations, having assassinated key Iranian military figures: the Chief of the General Staff, the Commander of the IRGC, and the heads of intelligence units. However, even bolder subversive operations against Iran conducted by US and Israeli intelligence fell on the onset of a second military campaign in February–March 2026. At that time, among those who succumbed to the operations were the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; the Minister of Defence, Aziz Nasirzadeh; the Chief of the General Staff, Abdolrahim Mousavi; the head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani; the head of the Basij, Gholamreza Soleimani; the head of Intelligence (the Ministry of Intelligence), Esmail Khatib; and other senior figures. In total, over three weeks of hostilities, seventeen Iranian military commanders were eliminated by Mossad and the CIA.
These operations showcased, on the one hand, the exceptional professionalism and operational capabilities of the Israeli and American intelligence services, both in terms of human intelligence and technical means. On the other hand, they exposed serious deficiencies in Iran’s counter-intelligence apparatus as well as the presence of informants. Precise intelligence on the location of targets provided for the effective use of airstrikes by the Israeli Air Force and drone attacks.
Such conduct by Israel and the United States epitomizes cynicism, which turns terrorist methods into standard practice for their intelligence agencies. But have these operations achieved the primary objective of the United States and Israel: regime change in the Islamic Republic?
The Resilience of Iran’s Political System: A System, Not Individuals
Despite the tragic events involving the deaths of the Supreme Leader and dozens of senior officials from Iran’s security apparatus – including figures from the Ministry of Defence, the General Staff, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the intelligence services, and the Supreme National Security Council – the country’s political regime has demonstrated its resilience. These losses have undoubtedly dealt a significant physical, moral, and professional blow to the state’s leadership, given that the cultivation and training of political and military figures take many years. Yet the millennia-long history of Iran and its governing system attests to its strength, founded on widespread support from both the people and the faithful.
There are several key factors contributing to such a state of affairs:
Firstly, the history of the theocratic regime, lasting for 47 years so far, has allowed it to establish an effective, multi-layered system for training its leadership personnel. This system ensures the capacity to swiftly appoint new leaders for the security apparatus in times of troubles, as well as to elect a new Supreme Leader.
Secondly, the tragic passing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei did not spark mass protests or anti-government demonstrations among the majority of Iranians, nor did it lead to a revolutionary change in the theocratic regime. On the contrary, Iranian society responded to this challenge by rallying around the authorities. Large-scale public demonstrations expressed support for the government, and the appointment of the new Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei, gained widespread recognition among Iranian people.
Therefore, Iran possesses a robust political system rooted in its institutions rather than in any individual figures. The system is able to swiftly appoint new leaders to replace those lost and continues to effectively resist external aggression.
This assessment is supported by the statement of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in an interview with Al Jazeera: ‘Of course, individuals can have influence, and each person plays their own role. But the most important thing is that the political system in Iran has a very strong structure. We have no one more important than our Leader, but even when he was martyred, the system did not cease to function.’
The Israeli and American intelligence services are conducting successful subversive operations, resulting in the elimination of dozens of key Iranian leaders. However, these actions are not ending up in the downfall of the regime nor in its surrender; Iran proceeds with its resistance.
The shift towards covert operations aimed at eliminating Iran’s leadership may indicate that the United States and Israel, having failed to achieve military victory in open confrontation, which we might refer to as ‘Operation A’, are now resorting to the tactics of ‘Operation B’, predominantly overt acts of terror, in the hope of achieving what is unattainable in any other way.
The Speaker of the Iranian Majlis, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, on his X social media account, mocked the claims made by President Donald Trump regarding the supposed nine instances of unconditional destruction of Iran and its military might over the preceding three weeks.
In this regard, there is a historical parallel coming to mind. The Emperor of France, Napoleon, when waging war in Russia, brought the ideas of the republic and democracy with him. Yet the Russian people did not accept ‘French liberation’, rallying behind their Tsar instead. As Lev Tolstoy noted, the reason lay in the imposition of a foreign will: ‘The Russian people,’ he wrote, ‘would never resort to questioning whether things would be good or bad under the French in Moscow. It was impossible to be under the French: that would have been the worst of all.’
Similarly, Iran demonstrates fortitude and faith in its own forces and capabilities.
Alexander SVARANTS – PhD in Politics, Professor, Specialist in Turkish Studies, Expert on Middle Eastern Countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment