In his assessment of the remarkable events in Iran over the last 24 hours, Washington Correspondent Keith Duggan says confirmation that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been killed during the wave of missile attacks “instantly thrusts Iran, and the Middle East, on to a different trajectory”.
As governments in the Middle East and across the world struggle to catch up with the speed of events, Duggan notes that there is “general agreement that nobody can forecast with any accuracy as to where the new dispensation will bring the region – or why the Trump administration has decided to act now.”
Within the US, Duggan reports that the military strikes on Iran were the source of general perplexion.
Having promised during the 2024 election campaign to keep the US out of “forever wars”, Donald Trump has again ordered a military action against a foreign state, without congressional approval.
Trump, the self-declared president of peace, goes to war seeking regime change
Three US service members killed in action against Iran; former Iranian president reportedly killed in strikes
Chartered flights now ‘routine’ says Minister as 63 South Africans deported
How Ireland managed to poach one of the hottest prospects in South African rugby
While the White House rationale was that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear capabilities and ballistic missiles capable of striking American targets, national security analysts and Middle East experts were dubious about the level and imminence of the threat.
While virtually all leading Democrat figures have welcomed the demise of Khamenei, Duggan reports that this response is “tempered by questions about the legality of the administration’s action”.
Duggan writes that another broad interpretation of the strikes is that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has again shaped US foreign policy to his own liking.
Trump has urged Iranian citizens to rise up and take power from the regime, but it remains “unclear how they are expected to stage a concerted uprising just weeks after an estimated tens of thousands of protesters were slaughtered by the military wings of the regime”, writes Duggan.
He adds it also remains to be seen if the Trump administration has any plan to facilitate Iranian citizens regaining control from the regime.
The bigger picture is Trump has once again “trusted his extraordinary instincts for the calculated gamble. And once again, it has generated an unanswerable series of questions and potential outcomes.”
In her analysis of the attacks on Iran, Michael Jansen says the attacks across Iran by Israel and the US have invited Iranian retaliation against US bases and allies in the Gulf.
“Iran’s retaliation could involve mining or blocking the Strait of Hormuz through which up to 25 per cent of the global oil supply is shipped daily from the Gulf,” she writes, which could precipitate an “oil shock” comparable to that of the 1970s by depriving the West of oil.
And while Trump says the objective is regime change, “without the commitment of ground forces to battle regime defenders in Iran” that objective is unlikely to be attained, Jansen writes.
Regime change by popular revolt rarely succeeds unless local armies intervene, Jansen says, adding that the “essential contributors to regime change in Iran are defection from or division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and a unified domestic opposition ready and able to assume power.”
The history of tensions between Tehran and Washington spans Iran’s nuclear programme, its ballistic missile arsenal and its network of proxy groups in the Middle East.
This article examines what independent experts say about these areas of Iranian power.
This profile of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei notes that a defining feature of his 37 years in charge was an Iranian foreign policy built on hostility towards the US and Israel “which reached such intensity that one reformist politician described it as ‘the core identity’ of the regime”.
Khamenei was one of the longest-reigning leaders in Iran’s modern history, marked by a reluctance to relinquish power and a reliance on hardliners to maintain it.
His view of “the enemy” was partly shaped during the war between Iraq, which was backed by the West and the Gulf states, and Iran in the 1980s, during which he appeared in military uniform on the front lines.
Finally, in his column looking at the implications of the attack by the US and Israel on Iran, Vincent Durac observes the objectives and the consequences of the military assault on Iran are unclear.
While Gulf states might be happy to see Iran’s leadership weakened, Durac says they “fear a scenario of chaos and uncertainty and the possibility of more radical elements in the regime coming to power.”
While it has been dramatically weakened in recent years, “there are few signs the end of the Islamic Republic is imminent,” Durac writes.
The death of Khamenei “would most likely radicalise rather than moderate the regime” and as a result there are “few positive outcomes from the American assault on Iran.”
We value your views. Please feel free to send comments, feedback or suggestions for topics you would like to see covered to feedback@irishtimes.com.
