Khamenei’s Death Failed to End the War—Larijani’s Killing Risks Prolonging It
The assassination of Ali Larijani in a joint US-Israel strike marks a significant turning point in the ongoing conflict involving Iran. This event may have a more profound operational impact than the earlier killing of Ali Khamenei. While Khamenei’s death reverberated globally, it served primarily as a symbolic blow to the Islamic Republic. In contrast, Larijani’s removal targets the very mechanisms that sustain the state, particularly during wartime. As tensions escalate, the loss of a key coordinator rather than a mere figurehead could alter the course of the conflict, making it more unpredictable and potentially extending its duration.
The ‘Decapitation Strike’ That Didn’t Collapse Iran
Khamenei was killed on February 28 in a US-Israel operation aimed at crippling Iran’s leadership in one decisive blow. However, the anticipated collapse did not occur; instead, the system adapted. Iranian authorities swiftly moved to stabilize the power structure by establishing a leadership council and redistributing authority among institutions like the Supreme National Security Council. Military operations continued with minimal disruption as command structures transitioned to a more decentralized model.
Previous reports had indicated that Iran’s governance model is designed to withstand the loss of even its top leader. Intelligence assessments suggested that this layered, institutional, and faction-driven system was resilient. Thus, while Khamenei’s death was politically and symbolically significant, it was structurally manageable.
Larijani: The Quiet Power Behind the State
If Khamenei symbolized authority, Larijani represented functionality. Operating largely out of the public eye, he was considered one of the most influential figures within Iran’s security and political apparatus. Described as a “backroom powerbroker,” Larijani shaped policy, managed internal alliances, and ensured that strategic decisions were implemented effectively.
As head of the Supreme National Security Council, Larijani held a pivotal role, coordinating between Iran’s political leadership, military establishment, and intelligence agencies. His influence spanned multiple levels of Iranian politics and extended abroad, underscoring his importance in managing both domestic and external strategies. In essence, Larijani was not merely part of the system; he was a crucial figure ensuring its cohesive functioning under pressure.
A Vacuum at the Worst Possible Time
Larijani’s assassination occurs at a critical juncture when coordination is paramount. His absence diminishes the ability of Iran’s various power centers to act in unison, heightening the risk of miscalculations. Unlike a symbolic leader, whose role can be quickly filled, a coordinator relies on relationships, trust, and real-time decision-making—all of which are challenging to replicate.
This creates a precarious gap. In wartime, the difference between escalation and restraint often hinges on rapid, centralized coordination. Without a figure like Larijani, decision-making may become slower, fragmented, or even contradictory, particularly among entities such as the Revolutionary Guard, political leadership, and regional proxies.
Why This Could Make the War Longer & Not Shorter
At first glance, the removal of a key strategist might appear to weaken Iran. However, the reality is more nuanced. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that the country’s system is designed to endure beyond individual leaders. He emphasized that the Islamic Republic possesses a robust political structure with established political, economic, and social institutions. The presence or absence of a single individual does not significantly affect this structure.
However, this resilience may also prolong the conflict. Without a central coordinator, several issues could arise:
- Power may fragment, leading different military and proxy groups to act more independently.
- Hardline factions may gain influence, reducing internal checks and advocating for more aggressive responses.
- Diplomatic channels may weaken, as figures like Larijani often serve as backchannel negotiators.
- The absence of controlled responses could result in sustained, uneven escalation, complicating conflict containment.
From Retaliation to Unpredictability
The war had already intensified following Khamenei’s assassination, with Iran launching retaliatory strikes and rising tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global oil supplies. However, Larijani’s death introduces a new phase. If the earlier strike aimed to disrupt leadership, this one threatens the internal coherence of the system. The shift is subtle yet significant: it transitions from a leadership crisis to a coordination crisis.
In wartime, this distinction is critical. The broader implication is that the conflict is no longer solely shaped by military strength but also by the stability of internal systems. Khamenei’s assassination tested whether Iran’s leadership could survive; Larijani’s killing now tests whether it can function effectively under pressure.
If the system holds, the war continues. If coordination falters, the risks multiply. Regardless, the conflict is unlikely to reach a swift conclusion. While Khamenei was the face of the regime, Larijani was the circuitry behind it. Damaging that circuitry may not shut the system down, but it could render everything far more volatile.
Follow the latest developments and breaking updates in the Latest News section.
Published on 2026-03-19 07:22:00 • By Editorial Desk
