Recent statements by President Masoud Pezeshkian suggest that armed forces units have been given broad authority to act if the top leadership is incapacitated. In practice, this could mean faster decision-making, but with less central coordination.
The Israeli airstrike that killed Iran’s security chief, Ali Larijani, has removed one of the Islamic Republic’s most experienced and influential policymakers at a critical moment. Larijani was not a military commander, but he was a central figure in shaping Iran’s strategic decisions. As secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, he stood at the heart of decision-making on war, diplomacy, and national security. His voice carried weight throughout the system, especially in managing Iran’s confrontation with the United States and Israel.
Following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on February 28, Larijani struck a defiant tone, signaling that Iran was prepared for a long conflict.
His death, now confirmed by state media, comes amid a broader campaign in which several senior Iranian officials and commanders have been killed in the space of a few weeks. The pattern suggests a sustained effort to weaken Iran’s wartime leadership structure. Despite his tough stance toward the West, Larijani was often portrayed within Iran as a pragmatist. He combined ideological loyalty with a technocratic approach, favoring calculated strategy over rhetoric. He remained deeply skeptical of engagement with Western powers, but he was also involved in key diplomatic efforts, including serving as envoy to Iran’s long-term cooperation agreement with China.
His departure leaves these issues unresolved and hands over to an as-yet-unknown successor who will face an extremely fragile situation. While Iran has shown resilience, in part by disrupting global energy markets, its airspace remains exposed to ongoing attacks. Any new senior figure will immediately face the risk of being targeted.
This could further shift power toward the military. Recent statements by President Masoud Pezeshkian suggest that the armed forces have been given broad authority to act if the top leadership is incapacitated. In practice, this could mean making decisions more quickly, but with less central coordination. There are also signs that the leadership is struggling to manage succession. Iran has delayed public announcements and kept some figures, including the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, largely out of the public eye. It is not clear whether this is done for security reasons or because of internal insecurity.
In the short term, the likely outcome is a more unstable situation: a tougher military stance in the war and stronger repression at home.
Iranian Army Chief of Staff Amir Hatami has also threatened to launch a “decisive” revenge for Larijani’s death. Over time, however, a system that continues to lose senior figures may find it increasingly difficult to function effectively, especially in a country of over 90 million people. The impact of Larijani’s death, then, is not just related to the loss of a single official. It deepens a leadership crisis that could affect both the course of the war and the stability of the Iranian state itself. (BBC)