The Middle East is burning. The United States, Israel, and Iran are locked in a military conflict, destabilizing the entire region. The targeted killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei by the United States and Israel marked one of the most significant escalations in the region in decades.In Washington and Tel Aviv, the predictions are clear: Remove the top of the Islamic Republic’s power structure, and the system beneath it will begin to crack, potentially opening the door to a long-awaited regime change after more than four decades of Khamenei’s rule.
“Khamenei is dead!”: Trump announces the end of the Iranian Supreme Leader in the Israeli-American attack
But Tehran’s immediate reaction points to a much more complex reality. Iran moved quickly to signal continuity rather than collapse, activating the constitutional succession mechanism through the Assembly of Experts, and appointing Ali Reza Arfi as interim supreme guide.
Even as missiles flew across the region, the state showed flexibility politically at home and militarily abroad.The question now is: What was intended as a beheading, will it backfire?
Will regime change strengthen the regime?
The Iranian economy has collapsed. Dissatisfaction with the current dictatorial regime is high, especially after a crackdown on protesters led to the deaths and arrests of thousands earlier this year. Given this scenario, regime change appears smooth.
However, it is not so.The Islamic Republic was not built around just one man. Over the course of 47 years, it has evolved into a multi-layered system of religious censorship, security institutions, patronage networks, and ideological enforcement mechanisms specifically designed to withstand external shocks. It is possible to appoint a successor, replace military commanders, and restore governance procedures. Air power, despite its destructive power, cannot easily unravel the political system that has institutionalized the caliphate and embedded itself deeply within the state bureaucracy and security services.In fact, an external attack may complicate, rather than accelerate, regime change. Even after becoming weak and unpopular at home, the Islamic Republic still retains the tools of coercion and mobilization. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains intact, and its regional proxy structure, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen, provides Tehran with escalation options that could raise the costs of war for the United States and Israel.
Short-term retaliation via Iraq, Syria, or the Red Sea could turn the bilateral standoff into a region-wide conflict, putting pressure on Gulf states and global markets. Such dynamics may buy the regime time, change diplomatic calculations, and make outside powers wary of pushing toward total collapse.
Will US-Israeli strikes push the Middle East into war?
What began as a targeted strike quickly turned into a region-wide confrontation. In the days following the killing of Ali Khamenei, Israel and the United States expanded air operations throughout Iran, but the response was not limited to Iranian territory. Hezbollah missiles from Lebanon, missile strikes on targets in the Gulf, bombings in Dubai and Manama, and attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz indicate that the conflict is no longer binary. With a Saudi oil refinery on fire, smoke billowing near the US Embassy in Kuwait, and even a drone strike on a British base in Cyprus, the theater of war has expanded dramatically. The escalation aimed at deterring Tehran appears to have opened multiple fronts.For Washington and Tel Aviv, the strategic gamble is starting to look risky. Hezbollah’s entry, confirmed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, risks turning the standoff into a long, multi-sided war extending from Lebanon to the Gulf. Gulf states hosting US forces now find themselves under direct threat, with key energy infrastructure targeted and commercial aviation disrupted.
Far from isolating Iran, the strikes have created shared vulnerability across the region, sending oil prices soaring, paralyzing trade routes and amplifying diplomatic pressure for de-escalation. This chaos undermines the narrative of quick and decisive action and, instead, demonstrates instability that could erode the confidence of allies.Politically, the attack may also backfire. Calls by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the Iranians to overthrow their government coincided with the escalation of nationalist rhetoric in Tehran.
Iranian leaders have portrayed the attacks as a broader assault on sovereignty and the Islamic world, strengthening internal cohesion in a moment of crisis.
Nuclear risks and international repercussions
Strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure have brought a layer of danger that extends far beyond the battlefield. Facilities like Natanz, where the International Atomic Energy Agency previously announced uranium enrichment to 60 percent purity, are not conventional military targets. Damage to enrichment halls, fuel production units, or storage sites carries the risk of radioactive leakage, especially in an area dotted with operating nuclear reactors and research facilities. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Mariano Grossi warned that further attacks could lead to radioactive releases with “serious consequences”, which could require evacuations and raise fears of cross-border contamination.
Even if contamination remains under control, the perception of nuclear insecurity alone could rattle global markets and increase public anxiety throughout the Gulf.Beyond safety concerns, the diplomatic infrastructure surrounding Iran’s nuclear program is under severe pressure. The military escalation marginalizes inspection systems and undermines any limited oversight mechanisms that were still functioning. If Tehran responds by reducing cooperation or accelerating enrichment, the confrontation could transform from a conventional military clash into an overt nuclear crisis. This, in turn, would widen geopolitical divisions, complicate UN diplomacy, and intensify major power rivalries. Rather than neutralizing the risk of proliferation, the current course may weaken oversight safeguards and increase the likelihood of a more uncertain and dangerous nuclear confrontation.
