- Israel and the US conducted airstrikes killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
- Trump called Khamenei evil and framed the attack as justice for victims of Iran
- Iran vowed harsh retaliation targeting US and Israeli military bases
On Saturday morning, Israel, with the support of the United States, carried out sudden, yet extensive, airstrikes against Iran, killing its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei-- who had ruled the Islamic Republic since 1989-- marking a dramatic escalation in hostilities in the Middle East. US President Donald Trump announced his assassination in a social media post, saying Khamenei was “one of the most evil people in history" and framing his death as retribution for Americans and others harmed by Iran's leadership.
“This is not only Justice for the people of Iran,” Trump wrote, “but for all Great Americans, and those people from many Countries throughout the World, that have been killed or mutilated by Khamenei and his gang of bloodthirsty THUGS.”
Iran has responded to the attacks with its own counterattacks. Tehran has warned of retribution, with the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards threatening to launch their “most intense offensive operation” ever, targeting Israeli and American bases.
Why The US And Israel Attacked Iran
US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have both claimed the main objective of their operation, which the US is calling "Epic Fury" and the Israelis are calling "Lion's Roar", is the toppling of Iran's Islamic regime. Both leaders have urged Iranians to eventually take to the streets and bring down their government.
Trump argued that he attacked Iran because Tehran had rejected every opportunity to renounce its nuclear programme, under which he claimed the Islamic Republic was developing long-range missiles that could threaten Europe, US troops overseas, and even "soon reach the American homeland".
He stressed Tehran's nuclear enrichment was a threat to the Western world, citing the violent takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 as well as Iran's proxies' bombing a US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241.
The US leader also pledged in January to intervene when Iranian security forces crushed protests amid an economic crisis. They got the opportunity after Tehran's violent crackdown on a student protest last week.
However, experts believe that the attack on Iran was not a necessity but "a war of choice" by Trump, who wants to be seen as a champion of peace. Talking to Foreign Affairs, Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said. "When historians look back at this moment in the not-too-distant future, they will view this not as a war of necessity but as a war of choice."
He claimed there was no imminent threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons or launching attacks on the United States and its allies and partners in the Middle East.
What US Gains From The Attack
According to Sadjadpour, both the US and Israel see an opportunity to exploit the weakness of one of their worst adversaries. "Iran does not control its own airspace; as a result of last June's war, its regional proxies are decimated, and it's feeling existential angst as a result of the popular uprising," he said.
Trump also has a personal stake here, according to Sadjadpour, who noted that in January, on at least nine occasions, the US leader drew firm redlines, insisting that if Iran killed protesters, the United States would come to their aid.
"Trump incited people to the streets during those protests, telling them to go seize state institutions and that help was 'on the way.” For Trump, the greatest motivating factor seemed to be his own credibility, more than any imminent threat to the United States," he said.
New Challenges Before US
More Unstability In Asia: Trump hopes that the US strikes would pave the way for the implosion of the theocratic system as a whole. His statement indicates that he is hoping that there will be defections from the military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and that people will take over the system.
However, talking to ABC News, Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, noted there seem to be no indications yet that the theocratic system is losing its control. "I think they've (Tehran) also been quite prepared that under certain circumstances, obviously, this very old man (Khamenei) would eventually die or get killed."
Sadjadpour also noted that internally, "the regime could emerge intact and become as brutal as North Korea—even more brutal than it has been in recent weeks after killing thousands of Iranians."
"There's also the possibility of state collapse and a potential civil war, given how polarised Iranians are and because of agitation among ethnic groups," he said.
Another dangerous aspect of Khamenei's death is that he was not just a de facto head of state of Iran. He was also a religious figure that had a strong following among Shia muslims in Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan and even India. His death could also lead to significant destabilisation in those states as well.
"Khamenei's death could result in the regime and its security forces closing ranks in order to survive, or it could serve as the equivalent of a giant cannon blast blowing a hole in a ship, causing the ship to sink and its leadership to bail out to save their own skins. The issue with this regime is that it's one of the loneliest regimes in the world. There isn't a good exit plan for any Iranian officials. There are very few places in the world where they can go into exile. For many of them, they assume that they must either kill or be killed," Sadjadpour noted.
Resource Strains: Trump also signalled even more expansive ambitions for his attacks on Iran, saying, “The heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue, uninterrupted, throughout the week or as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!"
Parsi, however, believes that the US would want to end this conflict as soon as possible. He said the Trump administration would want to establish a new regime in the US, one that does not resist its demand for denuclearization.
"From a US standpoint, there's going to be an effort to see if there can be that type of regime implosion, which then eventually would lead to the military not being able to operate and resist," he said.
"The Iranian strategy is going to be the opposite. They're going to try to drag this out as long as possible. They're going to try to impose and inflict high costs on the US in the region, but also on regional states," he added.
He noted that given how negative the American public by and large is towards these types of military engagements and the promises that Trump made that he wouldn't start another war in the region, "if this turns into a quagmire, it's going to be a big, big problem for Trump."
