By Mahir Balunywa
Center for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis
20th June 2025
Cell: +256 786 744 045
Overview
Theocracy predates democracy. Rooted in divine inspiration, it guided ancient Israel and Judah as early as 1622. Unlike secular states, where governance stems from human consensus or atheistic ideologies, a theocracy recognizes a deity as the ultimate ruler. Daily state affairs are overseen by human intermediaries who claim to act on divine authority.
In Iran’s theocratic system, religious law and clerical leadership operate under the belief that authority is divinely entrusted, beyond human questioning. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, embodies this role. His power lies not only in state structures but also in his religious standing as the spiritual leader of the Shia world, a position institutionalized through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Discussion about the possible assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei is not new. Israel and the West have portrayed him as afraid and in hiding. But such portrayals underestimate his ideological grounding. For devout believers like Khamenei, death is not feared—it is a transition. Far from being a fugitive, he has consistently stood firm, even in the face of mortal threats.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated threats may sound menacing to some, but for Iran’s leadership, they are more like “a storm in a teacup.” The question the West must consider is not whether they can kill Khomeini, but what would follow. The killing of Osama bin Laden offers a lesson: the consequences of eliminating such figures can extend far beyond the act itself.
A Brief History of the Iran-Israel Conflict
Today’s Israel-Iran tensions are rooted in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict that began after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Over time, Israel’s strategic concerns extended to the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power following the 1979 revolution.
Initially, both the U.S. and Israel attempted to engage Iran, even supplying arms in hopes of moderating the revolutionary government. But Khomeini proved more radical than expected. Relations broke down completely after the U.S. embassy was seized in Tehran.
Subsequent U.S. and Israeli attempts to destabilize Iran have included funding protests and opposition movements, such as the 1979 women’s demonstrations and the 2022 protests following Mahsa Amini’s death in police custody. While these efforts momentarily shook the regime, they failed to bring about lasting change.
Iran has been accused by Israel of funding groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and of involvement in attacks such as the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and the 1994 AMIA bombing. Iran’s retaliatory attacks, including recent missile strikes following Israeli bombings in Damascus, reflect a cycle of ongoing military provocation on both sides.
Who Is Ayatollah Khamenei?
To Israel and the West, Ayatollah Khamenei is a long-standing adversary. Yet to millions in the Shia world, he is a revered jurist and scholar who helped shape the modern Islamic state of Iran. His 1970 book, Islamic Government, outlined the doctrine of velayat-e faqih—rule by Islamic jurists—and laid the foundation for Iran’s current political system.
As Supreme Leader, Khamenei holds ultimate authority over all branches of government, the military, and judiciary. His anti-Western, anti-Israel stance is central to Iran’s foreign policy. He has consistently rejected Western alliances in favor of an “Islamic” identity rooted in resistance.
His influence stretches beyond Iran’s borders. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to Shia communities across the Middle East and South Asia, Khamenei commands respect and obedience. Many liken him to a “Shia Pope” whose authority is both spiritual and political. Ignoring his global stature would be a strategic miscalculation for any actor interested in Middle East stability.
Major Debates
Two divergent perspectives define current discourse on whether eliminating Khamenei would stabilize the region:
1. The Escalation Viewpoint (Trump, Russia, Global Analysts):
Former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia’s Foreign Ministry warn that killing Khamenei could escalate the regional conflict into a global one—especially amid the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war. Russian spokesperson Maria Zakharova cautioned, “We are millimeters away from catastrophe.”
2. The Decapitation Strategy (Netanyahu, Israeli Hawks):
Netanyahu believes that eliminating Khomeini will end the conflict, not escalate it. “This is not an escalation; it is a solution,” he claims. Israel’s Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, even compared Khamenei’s potential fate to that of Saddam Hussein.
However, critics like Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid argue that Netanyahu’s confrontational posture is driven by personal politics, not national interest. They blame him for escalating a conflict that did not exist during previous administrations.
Israel’s Military Strikes
Israel has ramped up its operations targeting Iran’s leadership infrastructure. Strikes have reportedly killed high-ranking Iranian commanders, missile experts, and intelligence chiefs close to Khamenei. A former Mossad operative, Ari Ben-David, called the operation “surgical,” targeting Iran’s nerve center. Still, Iran responded with its own wave of attacks, striking Israeli fuel production sites and defense infrastructure.
The Revolutionary Guard warned: “Iran never started this war, but we will decide how it ends.” For Tehran, Netanyahu’s war is a personal vendetta, and U.S. involvement is seen as misplaced loyalty that risks American lives and resources.
International law also enters the conversation. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits such aggression, while Article 51 allows Iran to respond in self-defense. Critics argue that Western powers normalize extrajudicial killings, then condemn smaller nations for similar actions.
Can Iran’s Theocracy Survive Khamenei’s Death?
Analysts such as senior fellow Dagres at the Washington Institute argue that Iran’s system is built for continuity. The Assembly of Experts—comprising 88 senior clerics—has the constitutional mandate to appoint the next Supreme Leader.
In this respect, Iran is more resilient than many believe. Khomeini is not the state; he is a pillar of a deeply entrenched system. Just as the Vatican survives the death of any one pope, Iran’s clerical leadership is prepared for succession.
Even if the regime were to collapse, the resulting vacuum would not guarantee a pro-Western or pro-Israel government. Iran’s theocracy is interwoven into its national identity and political infrastructure.
As former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas noted: “A country of 10 million cannot precipitate regime change in a country of 90 million. Real change comes from within.”
Conclusion
The death of Ayatollah Khamenei would be a historic event, but it is unlikely to mark the end of Iran’s theocratic regime. The system is larger than one man. Furthermore, any external attempt to eliminate him may unleash consequences far beyond what Israel or its allies can control.
Rather than focusing on assassination, the international community must grapple with the reality that enduring stability in the Middle East requires dialogue, internal reform, and respect for international law—not regime change by force.