THE appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei to succeed his father, Ali Khamenei, as the Supreme Leader of Iran signals that hardliners remain firmly in charge. Iranian institutions and politicians, from the foreign ministry to lawmakers, have expressed their allegiance to the country’s new supreme leader as the US/Israeli aggression entered its 10th day and fresh missile and drone strikes reverberated across the Middle East. This has also dealt a blow to the Western attempts to overthrow the current regime in Iran.
For years, the West has been trying hard to get the Islamists-led regime changed in Iran. To promote an anti-Islamist and anti-Shia stance, it raised concern over the denial of democracy in the country, repression against women, social stagnation and economic decay. But the underlying factor has always been and is – how to control the oil and mineral wealth of Iran and make the country bow to the capitalist ideology.
The current US-Israeli intervention was led by a rhetorical campaign, both by the United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urging Iranians to “rise”. The assassinations of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other high-level officials were celebrated as a major achievement of the alliance.
Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, Professor in Economics of the Middle East at Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany, is of the view that the assumption that the removal of a central figurehead will lead to a “short and decisive rupture” followed by a smooth transition is far from certain. In fact, Iran, after Ayatollah Khamenei, may not be at all what the proponents of intervention desire to see.
If one takes a wider look at the Middle East, then one will be able to identify three countries where external intervention in regime-change has not resulted in a smooth transition and stability. Iraq, Syria, and Libya have only witnessed chaos, not stabilisation. Whereas the fourth country in the region, about which most negative apprehensions were made, has been able to negate them, and the Taliban seem to have consolidated their control in the country.
Iraq has seen various insurgencies and civil war following the US invasion in 2003; despite democratisation efforts, the country is still unable to return to pre-2003 stability.
Libya’s collapse following a NATO-led intervention in 2011 has not resulted in a cognisable recovery in sight. The country remains split between two centres of governance – in Tripoli and Benghazi.
Syria, after the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the emergence of Al Sharaa on the country’s political scene, has not been able to foster a new welfare regime but has seen Al Sharaa being propped up by the US administration.
But the case of Iran is different from these countries in many ways. Further, the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei may have a profound impact, which may not result in a state collapse.
Within the symbolic universe of Shia Islam, to which the majority of Iranians belong, Khamenei’s death can be interpreted as the fulfilment of a martyrological script. Death at the hands of the enemies of Islam can be framed as a redemptive passage rather than a defeat; it is not a bitter collapse, as is the case with other Middle Eastern rulers who were ousted or killed. It is instead an idealised closure: the sacralisation of political life through sacrificial death, says Prof Farzanegan.
For Iran, the big question now is whether administrative cohesion and territorial integrity can be preserved. Achieving this depends primarily on the survival of the “deep state”, the resilient civil bureaucracy and technocratic class that manages the country’s fiscal and essential services. Furthermore, territorial integrity rests on the continued unity between the regular army (Artesh) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), maintains Prof Farzanegan.
But here the critics forget that Iran possesses a level of ethnic and linguistic diversity greater than that of the average Middle Eastern country. In the absence of a central authority and with security leadership currently targeted, the risk of state fragmentation and the rise of various militias should not be underestimated.
In the worst-case scenario, internal turmoil is likely to follow the fault lines of existing grievances. In the borderlands, long-simmering insurgencies among the Baluch, Kurd and Arab populations could escalate into full-scale separatist conflicts as central control diminishes.
In recent weeks, the saying “a bitter ending is better than endless bitterness” has been invoked by some to justify foreign military intervention in Iran. Such perceptions seem to rest on the belief that a quick resolution can be achieved through military means.
For the people of Iran, the “bitter ending” of a regime may not be the final act of their suffering, but the opening chapter of a new, structurally entrenched era of “endless bitterness” that could haunt the region for decades to come.
As far as fissures appearing between the majority Shia and minority Sunnis, appearing in Iran, are concerned, this also does not seem plausible. As recently as March 5, hundreds of Sunni scholars in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan declared Jihad against the Zionist entity and its backers, while voicing support for Iran’s armed forces amid ongoing tensions. A group of 660 Sunni scholars in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province issued a statement condemning the ongoing US-Israeli aggression and calling for resistance against it.
The scholars stated that the religious and historical duty requires not keeping silent in the face of what they described as the aggression against the country. They further issued a religious ruling declaring that “jihad against the criminal Zionist entity and its arrogant backers is a major obligation.”
The statement also urged residents of the province to remain vigilant and not fall prey to what the scholars described as plots and sedition by hostile groups and supporters of the Pahlavi family, while announcing full support for Iran’s armed forces and the IRGC in defending the country’s security.
Shia scholars were also quick to announce a fatwa of Jihad against the US and Israel. Scholars endorsing the fatwa included Sheikh Javadi Amoli, Sheikh Makaram Shirazi, Sheikh Nouri Hamedani, and Iraq’s Sayyed Hashem al-Haidari.
This coming together of Shia and Sunni factions, besides the control of the Supreme Council and the IRGC, will ensure the continuity of the current regime in Iran, belying the fallacious propaganda and wishful thinking of the US-led Western powers and Zionist powers.
___________
Asad Mirza is a New Delhi-based senior commentator on national, international, defence and strategic affairs. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them.
