Introduction

Since the escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran, the former has utilized targeted assassination as a strategy to weaken the latter. The report by major international media outlets on the 15th of June 2025, that the American President, Donald Trump, had warned Israel not to assassinate the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, should be applauded by people knowledgeable in history, Middle East Politics, and Political Islam. The assassination of a sitting national leader is among the most provocative acts a state can commit, especially in the context of a volatile Middle East. In this piece, I argue that if Israel ignores the advice from Trump, the result would be a strategic miscalculation that will plunge the region into chaos by serving as an inspiration for radical actors. My position is informed by Khamenei's symbolic and strategic Importance, regional fallout cum global implications, and lessons from history, which illustrates the wisdom of avoiding unnecessary escalations that make peace and reconciliation more difficult.

Khamenei's Symbolic and Strategic Importance

Iran is a theocracy. The Position of the Supreme Leader makes the Ayatollah the face of politics and religion in the country. He is both the spiritual and ideological engine of the country, a position he has held since 1989. For example, Khamenei wields enormous power over major state institutions such as the military, the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, and the media, while functioning as the spiritual leader. The country's domestic and foreign policy revolve around him (Vatanka, 2020). Khamenei carries a weight that is almost untouchable in the eyes of many Iranians. For the conservatives, he is sacred, often viewed as a defender of Islam and the caretaker of the Revolution based on the velayat-e faqih, or guardianship of the Islamic jurist system. As such, his assassination by Israel will not just be a slap on the sovereignty of Iran, but a sin against God. It will be framed as an act of martyrdom perpetrated by “Islam’s arch enemy in the Middle East” and supported by the West. Such framing could lead to the resurgence of Pan-Islamism in the mold of the Afghan Mujahideen in the wake of the Soviet invasion.

In addition, the succession strategy lacks clarity (Bozorgmehr, 2015). As such, his assassination will create a sudden vacuum and result in a protracted power struggle among Iran’s political, military, and religious elites, potentially fracturing internal order. The losers in the power tussle will likely invest in several attempts to regain power and relevance, a move that can facilitate the country’s sudden descent into anarchy, destabilizing the entire political and religious system, and provoking unpredictable domestic upheaval, as well as significant regional repercussions.       

Regional Fallout and Global Implications

The Ayatollah’s legitimacy is deeply rooted in Shia Islamic theology and revolutionary ideology. His leadership embodies Iran’s identity as a theocratic state resisting Western influence and the “Zionist regime.” His assassination will have severe regional and global implications because he has used his position to establish proxy networks such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. These groups are loyal to the Ayatollah and the principle of vilayat-e faqih. These groups are likely to respond with violent reprisal attacks across multiple fronts, including targeting U.S. bases, Israeli cities, and shipping routes in the Persian Gulf (Byman, 2020).

Furthermore, Iran's asymmetrical warfare strategy, as shown by its mobilization of regional proxies, can destabilize the Middle East and harm Western interests across the globe. For example, it can destabilize Iraq, where the Ayatollah commands massive respect among the country's majority Shia population.  Syria and other regional actors, like Saudi Arabia, could feel the heat as many of their citizens may perceive them as co-conspirators with the enemies of Islam in the death of a Muslim leader. Turkey and even Russia will step in to advance their own interests. In the same vein, some radical groups can exploit the situation to expand influence by framing the assassination as another episode of the global war against Islam. All these will ultimately lead to regional and global chaos. 

The assassination of the Ayatollah, apart from its ability to destabilize the region, will jeopardize the global oil markets. According to the US Energy Information Administration [EIA] (2023), Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic maritime chokepoint, through which about 20% of global oil trade passes (U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2023). Therefore, any form of blockade or attacks on vessels will have consequences on oil prices and wreck the economy of oil-dependent nations worldwide.

Lessons from history

While history is replete with accounts of how the killing of a leader led to the end of a conflict, such as that of Hitler and World War 2, the LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran and the Sri Lankan civil war, among others (ICG, 2010). There are also notable instances where the death of a leader prolonged a conflict. For example, the death of Muamar plunged Libya into a conflict the country is yet to recover from; same as Iraq did after Saddam Hussein. Therefore, countries must take into cognizance this fact to ascertain when assassination should be an effective strategy and when it can backfire.

The US, though with many mistakes in this regard, appears to have gotten one right: the case of Emperor Hirohito after the surrender of Japan. Even though the emperor, whose power, just like Ayatollah, was considered divine, was the leader of a militarized Japan in whose name the nation fought the war, General Douglas MacArthur, who led the allied forces 'occupation of Japan at the end of World War 2, spared the emperor during the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, where many Japanese political and military leaders, including Hideki Tojo, were executed. The emperor retained his status as a constitutional monarch, using it to foster surrender, national stability, and eventual democratization (Dower, 1999).

The Allied forces would have faced a difficult challenge if they had executed the emperor. His execution would have led to radicalization and resistance among the Japanese and had a negative impact on efforts at post-war reconstruction. General Douglas MacArthur’s strategic judgment that Hirohito could serve as a unifying figure during the occupation proved vital to rebuilding Japan’s political institutions. This decision was grounded not in moral absolution but in practical statecraft. A similar logic should guide the Israeli approach to the war with Iran: sparing a powerful symbolic figure as the Ayatollah, can serve greater long-term interests.

Conclusion

If Israel succeeds in assassinating the Ayatollah, as it has been pushing for, it will amount to a strategic catastrophe with sweeping consequences. The assassination will only create a leadership vacuum in a country that thrives on anti-Israel and anti-West ideology. While it will not end the country's anti-Israel and anti-Western activities, it will fester and serve the interests of radical groups. and further destabilize the region with both political and economic consequences. Therefore, Israel, as a matter of strategic wisdom, must learn from the allied forces' approach towards Japan that enduring security can be achieved through strategic patience rather than perilous provocations.

Ikenna Steve Nweke, PhD., is a researcher specializing in terrorism, African politics, Middle East affairs, and global security. He is a lecturer at the School of Global Studies of Musashi University, Tokyo.

References

Bozorgmehr, N. (2015, December 14). Rafsanjani breaks taboo over selection of Iran's next supreme leader. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/14/rafsanjani-breaks-taboo-over-selection-of-irans-next-supreme-leader

Byman, D. (2020, October 13). Iran’s deadly diplomats. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2020-10-13/irans-deadly-diplomats

Dower, J. W. (1999). Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake of World War II. W. W. Norton & Company.

Gartenstein-Ross, D., & Barr, N. (2021). Terrorism in transition: The rise of lone-wolf and networked attacks. Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Takeyh, R. (2021). The last shah: America, Iran, and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty. Yale University Press.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023, October 5). World oil transit chokepoints. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51078

Vatanka, A. (2020). The battle of the ayatollahs in Iran: The United States, foreign policy, and political rivalry since 1979. I.B. Tauris.