Experts Warn US-Israel Assassination Strategy Could Strengthen Iran's Regime
Recent targeted killings of senior Iranian figures, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, security chief Ali Larijani, and intelligence minister Esmail Khatib, have sparked intense debate over the efficacy of the so-called decapitation strategy employed by the United States and Israel. This approach, aimed at destabilising Iran's clerical regime by eliminating its top leadership, may prove counterproductive by breeding hardened resistance instead of fostering democratic change.
Structural Resilience of Iran's Regime
Sanam Vakil, an Iran expert at Chatham House, emphasises that Iran's political system is not personalised but built on institutional layers. She argues that decapitation strikes could simply lead to promotions from within the existing hierarchy, potentially bringing up untested individuals. Vakil notes that the strategy risks rejuvenating a regime that was previously seen as stagnating in the face of protests. "It is not an approach that produces Jeffersonian democrats but hardened resistance fighters. It breeds more resistance," she states, highlighting how the killings of mentors and family members might inflame nationalist sentiments.
Historical Precedents and Scepticism
Israel's history of assassination campaigns offers little evidence of long-term success. Over the years, targeted killings of leaders in groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, such as Sheik Ahmed Yassin and Hassan Nasrallah, have not led to their collapse; instead, these organisations have rebounded. Jon B Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington draws parallels, citing Hamas as a political movement that "absorbed its martyrs and lives to fight another day." He points out that advancing ambitious political goals through limited military efforts has a poor track record, with the removal of leaders in non-state groups like al-Qaeda being a rare exception.
Potential Outcomes and Risks
Alterman warns that the decapitation strategy could result in an internally unstable Iran more prone to external aggression through cyberwarfare, proxies, or terrorism. He cautions that eliminating credible figures leaves no one with influence to curb violent actions. Meanwhile, Afshon Ostovar, a Middle East expert, suggests in a Foreign Affairs essay that any regime change might come from within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, aimed at preserving existing institutions rather than fostering democracy. Steven Simon, a former US national security council staffer, adds that a wounded and revanchist Iran could become ungovernable, posing new challenges.
Ethical and Strategic Concerns
Vakil raises ethical issues, noting the lack of agency for Iranians in this process. "What Israel and the US are pursuing, that makes me so uncomfortable, is that there is no agency or choice or justice for Iranians in this process," she remarks. This sentiment underscores broader concerns that the strategy may backfire, strengthening the very regime it seeks to undermine. As fighting intensifies between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the implications of these assassinations continue to unfold, with experts urging a reevaluation of tactics to avoid unintended consequences.
