Targeting Iran's Leader, Israel's War Strategy Questioned
Israel’s military and political officials have announced the death of Ali Larijani, Iran’s de facto leader, as a major success in military and intelligence operations. This attack represents the most significant blow to Iran’s leadership since the escalation of the conflict involving the United States and Israel began.
According to The New York Times, the attack also included operations against commanders of Iran’s internal security militia, the Basij, adding pressure to the country’s power structure. Previously, airstrikes in Tehran even killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with several Iranian military leaders.
This series of actions demonstrates Israel’s reliance on targeted assassination strategies to achieve war objectives. The main target is to weaken the Iranian government and open opportunities for popular uprisings by disrupting internal security forces.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated in a video message that if this strategy continues, the Iranian people may determine their own fate. Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz affirmed that the military will continue to hunt Iranian leaders and repeatedly sever their strength.
Nevertheless, Larijani’s death raises questions about the long-term effectiveness of this strategy. Some parties assess that Israel may be using these tactics not only because they are effective, but also because they have the capability to do so, despite the risk of unintended consequences.
Israel itself has a long history of assassination operations against its enemies. From retaliatory operations following the 1972 Munich Olympics tragedy to targeting Palestinian militant figures during the Second Intifada and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in 2024.
Some Israeli analysts believe this strategy has the potential to weaken Iran to the point of compelling it to compromise on nuclear and ballistic missile issues. Former Mossad official Sima Shine stated that sustained pressure could eventually make Iran feel unable to bear the burden of the conflict.
She added that weakening the Basij militia could also reduce the effectiveness of security forces in the field. This has the potential to make lower-level members reluctant to carry out their duties in the face of internal pressure.
However, there are also concerns that Larijani’s death could strengthen hardline groups in Iran. Larijani was known as a pragmatic figure capable of bridging moderate groups and military hardliners.
Analysts assess that his successor could come from more aggressive circles, such as leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or other military-political figures. This situation risks prolonging the conflict and hardening Iran’s stance towards the United States and Israel.
Some parties also believe that Iran’s leadership structure is deep enough to withstand the loss of key figures. After Khamenei’s death, Iran quickly appointed Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader.
Former Israeli military intelligence official Danny Citrinowicz stated that the “decapitation” leadership strategy has limitations. He assessed that Iran still has significant capacity to replace slain leaders.
He also exemplified that although Israel succeeded in killing many Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, both organisations remained resilient despite being weakened. According to him, the strategy is important but not sufficient as the sole approach in war.
Warnings also come from former head of Israel’s internal security agency Ami Ayalon, who believes this strategy risks triggering wider chaos in the Middle East region. He reminded that toppling a regime does not always lead to stability, but could spark prolonged conflict.
Ayalon assessed that the Israeli and US governments do not yet have clear and measurable war objectives. He also doubts that military pressure alone can prompt the Iranian people to overthrow the government in the near term.
According to him, millions of Iranians depend on the existing regime and will defend it for their safety. He likened the ideological conflict to a game of chess, where victory cannot be achieved merely by toppling one main figure.