Iranian Supreme Leader Office/ EPA
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian Supreme Leader, promised revenge on Israel.
Before Saturday’s attacks, a CIA analysis estimated that if he were killed, Khamenei would be replaced by radical elements of the Revolutionary Guard. Trump said for weeks he wanted regime change in Iran, but did not reveal any details about who could lead the country.
The most recent Israeli and American war against Iran began with the residence and offices of Ali Khameneiwhich would eventually lead to that of the country.
The US and Israeli strategy would be based on the idea that the sudden elimination of Khamenei would pose a fatal threat for the system currently in power.
The aim would be to achieve what happened in Libya after Muammar al-Gaddafi or in Syria after Bashar al-Assad, where regimes collapsed as soon as their leaders were no longer in power. In those systems, the future of the State was inextricably linked to a single person.
But the history of Iran and their survivability are different. Few governments today concentrate so much visible authority in a single institution like Iran does in the figure of the Supreme Leader. Religious legitimacy, command of the armed forces and definitive political arbitration converge in this position.
However, visibility should not be confused with fragility. The position rests on a dense network of institutions designed not only to serve the leader, but to constrain him, monitor him and, if necessary, survive himhe writes Ali Hashemresearcher in Islamic studies at the University of London, in an article in .
The Islamic Republic It’s not just a personal regimen coated with religious language. It’s a revolutionary system which invested heavily in planning leadership transitions. Under pressure, its structure was designed to joinand not to disintegrate.
Iranian political behavior cannot be understood without recognizing the depth with which the ruling elite reads history. The Iranian state has gone through repeated periods of political emptiness over the centuries, and its political imaginary continues to be defined by these experiences. Each crisis is confronted with previous collapses, consciously or instinctively.
The system faced its first big test right at the beginning. After the removal of the President Abolhassan Banisadrtanto o President Mohammad Ali Rajai como o Primeiro-Ministro Mohammad Javad Bahonar foram elected and murdered within a month.
Even so, in less than 50 days, Khamenei became Presidentproving that the regime was capable of quickly find new leaders in time of crisis.
Eight years later, after the Death of the mythical Ayatollah Khomeinithe same logic worked again. Khamenei, who did not possess Khomeini’s charisma nor its top religious status, became Supreme Leader because the institutions agreed, and not because it was expected.
A central message within the Iranian state was clear: the system has to be capable of . And recent events have once again illustrated this principle.
When the President Ebrahim Raisi in 2024, the constitutional provisions were applied immediately. Power passed in an orderly manner, elections were held quickly and the system remained stable. Instead of causing chaosthe crisis acted as a rehearsal for managing unforeseen leadership transitions.
The Iranian Constitution explicitly anticipates sudden loss of leadership. Article 111 stipulates that if the Supreme Leader dies or becomes incapacitated, the authority is immediately transferred to an interim board composed of the President of the Republic, the head of the judiciary and a high-ranking cleric selected by the Discernment Council.
The objective is to ensure continuity of leadershipand not change the political system. It is important to emphasize that the Constitution defines the qualifications required of the next leader, but does not restrict the choice to a strictly religious path.
This flexibility allows succession to be a negotiation process and stability, and not just a decision of a religious naturethe. There is no set deadline for choosing a new leader. In case of war, the interim council may rule for an extended period. What from the outside may seem like a delay is, in reality, a risk management mechanism internal.
Like this, in case of sudden death of Ayatollah Khameneithe Iranian regime will not take long to find its successor — who, according to an analysis conducted by the CIA before Saturday’s attacks, would be found among the radical figures of the Revolutionary Guard Islamic State, two sources briefed on the intelligence reports said.
The assessments of the North American intelligence agency, produced throughout the last two weekscomprehensively analyzed the possible scenarios in Iran following a US intervention, as well as the extent to which a military operation could trigger a regime change in the Islamic Republic — an objective that Washington has now declared.
According to an American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the authors of the information report described the operation to President Donald Trump as a high-risk, high-reward scenariowhich could result in a generational change in the Middle East in favor of US interests.
However, it is to be expected that the attacks by Israel and the United States will end trigger not a regime change but a change in leadershipwhich will be seen in Tehran not as an end — but as an opportunity for the country’s institutionsdemonstrate that they can surviveconcluded Ali Hashem.
