What is the future of Iran after Khamenei's assassination?
After weeks of extensive military preparations, a joint US-Israeli strike has killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He not only led the Islamic Republic but also shaped its image.
Tehran has apparently responded by launching drones and ballistic missiles in all directions, plunging the Middle East into unprecedented turmoil.
At the center of this ongoing storm are ordinary Iranians. Last December, thousands of Iranians took to the streets. The government cracked down on the protests with a heavy hand. Many were arrested.
Amid the protests, US President Donald Trump’s administration had promised for weeks that “help was coming.” But with Khamenei’s death, the future of the Iranian people has become even more dangerously uncertain.
Last Saturday, Donald Trump declared to the Iranian people, “Your time for liberation is near. When our work is done, you will assume the responsibility of the government. This is what you deserve. This is probably your only chance in a few generations.”
However, the main concern of various factions of the Iranian opposition camp is that even if the Americans remove Khamenei, regime change (regime change) is not possible through airstrikes alone.
According to Donald Trump, the death of the Supreme Leader is the “greatest opportunity for Iranians to take back their country.” However, the process of choosing his successor has already begun.
The concern is that, especially since the final stage of the US attack on Iran last June, real power has largely passed to the ‘Supreme National Security Council’ and the ‘Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’.
As a result, after the end of this joint operation, Iran may be left with a weak and wounded but very angry regime. They may become vindictive in their fight for survival and become even more desperate to suppress ordinary people if they dare to respond to Trump's provocations.
The movement has been weakened by a bloody crackdown on protests and the lack of a clear leader or alternative leadership is another major obstacle. Although some protesters have called for the return of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last shah who was deposed in the 1979 revolution that ushered in the current Islamic republic.
Even Iranian Kurdish separatists, who support the US and Israeli invasion, are now worried. They have a handful of organized armed opposition forces in the country (it is worth noting that they are not in favor of a return to the monarchy).
“Of course, these attacks are welcomed. But they have lost a lot of morale because of their failure to protect the people in the past. We need to restore that hope now,” said Hana Yazdanpana, a member of the Kurdish nationalist armed group Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK).
Herein lies the real problem. While external military pressure can weaken a regime, it rarely produces a sustainable and stable alternative leadership; rather, it is this transitional phase that is most dangerous.
“In fact, there is a great danger of extreme chaos, even civil war, within Iran,” warns Arash Azizi, a historian of the ‘divide and rule’ policy and author of ‘What Iranians Want.’ If that were to happen, that would be a terrible nightmare.”
And that may be the main goal at this stage. Israel’s ‘divide and rule’ policy has a long history—from Palestine to more recently Syria. By stoking tensions in southern Syria, Israel has put pressure on the country’s new president, who oversaw the dramatic ouster of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad.
On Saturday night, Benjamin Netanyahu called on Iranians to “take to the streets in droves and complete the task of regime change.” But the concern is that Israel may prefer a weak, unstable and chaotic Iran to a strong, Western-oriented and prosperous Iran.
Even if external influences are excluded, the regime’s steel-hardened structure, the IRGC, is something to contend with. It is not possible to overthrow such a powerful, well-equipped and deeply entrenched force with just one round of airstrikes.
Arash Azizi said that real power now lies with Iran’s military-controlled Security Council, which has “de facto run the country since last June.” He added that “a power struggle will now begin between different factions over the future leadership.”
Arash Azizi said that whoever comes to power in Tehran may have to reorganize everything in order to survive. Will the ideological anti-Americanism and anti-Israelism be buried with the Supreme Leader? Will this pave the way for US deals with figures like Ali Larijani, the head of the Security Council and former IRGC official?
Historian Arash Azizi further questions whether they (the US) will be satisfied with this? Or do they really believe their own words that the Iranian people will now rise up to seize power or that power will be transferred to an outsider like Reza Pahlavi?
Post a Comment