Iranian Leadership in Turmoil
The loss of many key leaders in short order is a serious problem.
Reuters (“Iran leader Khamenei sees his inner circle hollowed out by Israel“):
Iran’s 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei cuts an increasingly lonely figure.
Khamenei has seen his main military and security advisers killed by Israeli air strikes, leaving major holes in his inner circle and raising the risk of strategic errors, according to five people familiar with his decision-making process.
One of those sources, who regularly attends meetings with Khamenei, described the risk of miscalculation to Iran on issues of defence and internal stability as “extremely dangerous”.
Several senior military commanders have been killed since Friday including Khamenei’s main advisers from the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s elite military force: the Guards’ overall commander Hossein Salami, its aerospace chief Amir Ali Hajizadeh who headed Iran’s ballistic missile program and spymaster Mohammad Kazemi.
These men were part of the supreme leader’s inner circle of roughly 15-20 advisers comprising Guards commanders, clerics, and politicians, according to the sources who including three people who attend or have attended meetings with the leader on major issues and two close to officials who regularly attend.
The loose group meets on an ad-hoc basis, when Khamenei’s office reaches out to relevant advisers to gather at his compound in Tehran to discuss an important decision, all the people said. Members are characterised by unwavering loyalty to him and the ideology of the Islamic Republic, they added.
Khamenei, who was imprisoned before the 1979 revolution and maimed by a bomb attack before becoming leader in 1989, is profoundly committed to maintaining Iran’s Islamic system of government and deeply mistrustful of the West.
Under Iran’s system of government he has supreme command of the armed forces, the power to declare war, and can appoint or dismiss senior figures including military commanders and judges.
Khamenei makes the final decision on important matters, though he values advice, listens attentively to diverse viewpoints, and often seeks additional information from his counsellors, according to one source who attends meetings.
[…]
The focus on survival has repeatedly been put to the test. Khamenei has deployed the Revolutionary Guards and its affiliated Basij militia to quell national protests in 1999, 2009 and 2022.
However, while the security forces have always been able to outlast demonstrators and restore state rule, years of Western sanctions have caused widespread economic misery that analysts say could ultimately threaten internal unrest.
The stakes could barely be higher for Khamenei who faces an escalating war with Israel, which has targeted nuclear and military sites and personnel with air attacks, drawing retaliatory Iranian missile fire, insiders and analysts said.
The five people familiar with Khamenei’s decision-making process stressed that other insiders who have not been targeted by Israel’s strikes remain important and influential, including top advisers on political, economic and diplomatic issues.
Khamenei designates such advisers to handle issues as they arise, extending his reach directly into a wide array of institutions spanning military, security, cultural, political and economic domains, two of the sources said.
Operating this way, including in bodies nominally under the elected president, means Khamenei’s office is often involved not only in the biggest questions of state but in executing even minor initiatives, the sources said.
His son Mojtaba has over the past 20 years grown ever more central to this process, the sources said, building a role that cuts between the personalities, factions and organisations involved to coordinate on specific issues, the sources said.
A mid-ranking cleric seen by some insiders as a potential successor to his ageing father, Mojtaba has built close ties with the Guards giving him added leverage within across Iran’s political and security apparatus, the sources said.
Ali Asghar Hejazi, the deputy of political security affairs at Khamenei’s office, has been involved in sensitive security decisions and is often described as the most powerful intelligence official in Iran, the sources said.
[…]
Meanwhile, the head of Khamenei’s office, Mohammad Golpayegani, as well as former Iranian foreign ministers Ali Akbar Velayati and Kamal Kharazi, and ex-parliament speaker Ali Larijani, remain trusted confidants on diplomatic and domestic policies issues such as the nuclear dispute, the sources said.
The loss of the Revolutionary Guards commanders nonetheless decimates the top ranks of a military organisation that he has put at the centre of power since becoming supreme leader in 1989, relying on it for both internal security and Iran’s regional strategy.
While the regular army chain of command runs through the defence ministry under the elected president, the Guards answer personally to Khamenei, securing the best military equipment for their land, air and sea branches and giving their commanders a major state role.
As he faces one of the most dangerous moments in the Islamic Republic’s history, Khamenei finds himself further isolated by the recent losses other key advisers in the region as Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” coalition has been hammered by Israel.
While their ideology is fanatical, the regime has proven itself rational since its establishment in 1979. Unlike the Kim regime in North Korea, the Supreme Leader has always had a robust and overlapping set of advisory councils to help steer the ship of state. Losing so many key figures in such a short order is a huge blow.
Yes, it could hasten regime collapse. There are credible reports that the Kurds are looking to seize this moment and there have been widespread protests for quite some time. But it could also lead to rash decisionmaking, with desperate efforts to keep the Islamic Republic intact gaining approval from less seasoned hands.
Tearing down the Iranian murderous command structure one lineal list entry at a time.
To quote Charles Bronson’s character at the end of ‘The Dirty Dozen’, “Boy, oh boy, I could get used to killing generals”
@JKB:
Good thing that real life is just like the movies!
Man, this feels way too much like 2003.
It’s not like the decision making in Iran over the last few years has been anything to write home about.
And yes, when you are at war, negativity impacting the command and control is an essential element. You want an enemy making poor decisions. This is especially true of forces and regimes that are highly hierarchical.
Anyway, things are coming to a head soon. The US has almost all the pieces in place to enter this conflict in a decisive way. We’ll see if that can be avoided – at this point it will probably take Iran surrendering on its nuclear ambitions at a minimum. Opinions differ, but that seems unlikely to me.
@Andy:
Looks like that to me also.
High probability of a decision point between effective Iranian capitulation or direct US intervention within 48 hours.
@JohnSF: Alas, I’m afraid both your and Dr. Taylors’s trepidation is well-founded. I don’t see an Iranian capitulation in the short run as being likely.
@Andy:
I also fall into the camp of “they won’t surrender without some way to save a little face” category. I’m not sure Israel–or rather Bibi–is willing to provide any face-saving options. And I’m not sure Trump is interested in that–or has enough influence with Bibi to force a compromise.
As oft noted, the fatal flaw in autocracies is that demonstrating loyalty to the leader becomes the key to advancement. Hence yes men and bad decisions. Adding religious piety isn’t likely to improve anything. My bet is any newbies will be less qualified for their slots, less skillful at influencing Khamenei and the others, and falling over themselves to demonstrate loyalty. Decision making is likely to be much worse.
TACO has been reluctant to use military force except domestically. I fear, like Mussolini 85 years ago almost to the day, he may be eager to jump into a fight he sees as already won. JohnSF is welcome to disagree, but it seemed to me the 1985 British/Northern Ireland agreement flowed from Britain deciding it was more important to settle than to win. Obama’s JCPOA seemed to flow from the same sentiment. Netanyahu and Trump want to win. And they are in a position to win. Short term.
I can’t help but wonder, what next. This whole bit of shit strikes me as Netanyahu’s escalation to stay in power and divert (mostly European) eyes from the nightmare in Gaza.
I think the current round of strikes has laid bare that Iran can’t realistically defend itself. Sure, a ground invasion is not an easy thing, unlike what seems to get Mr. Dirty Harry a little tingle in his pants. So, obvious that best case scenario Iran gets the shit knocked out of it, worse case scenario it gets absolutely fucking wrecked and the Kurds decided to rewrite the map. Seems to me like a recipe for unmitigated suffering and disaster.
Then what? It’s not like Netanyahu can back down. He’s going to have to either escalate somewhere or give in to the Settlers and make shit worse in Gaza and the West Bank.
@gVOR10:
I see what Netanyahu wins, but what does Trump win? Is Iran a big enough threat to the United States to warrant a hot war? I don’t buy it.
I wish the US were capable of acting with more cold, naked self-interest in foreign policy like Israel does.
@DK:
I don’t think Israel is anymore capable of acting in it’s own naked self-interest. I’m pretty sure that Israel’s interests have merged into Netanyahu’s interests.
Maybe this is a hot take, but I think that Israel has been lost to a Netanyahu dictatorship that is solely propped up by bigots and religious fanatics.
@Beth: Netanyahu is Israel’s longest serving prime minister. The worst security failure in Israeli history happened on his watch due in part to his horrible choices, and Israelis still largely support him. He’s not there by accident.
It’s like the pretense Trump is an aberration and not who we are. Yes, Trump is who most of us are: racist or tolerant of racism, selfish, remiss, sexist or indifferent to sexism, self-interested, bad at critical thinking. And unlikely to fix it because we are still lying to ourselves about our bigotry and declining sense of ethics, morals, communal responsibility, and civic duty.
Netanyahu’s interests are Israeli interests, because Netanyahu (and literal convicted terrorist Ben-Gvir) is representative of who most Israelis have let themselves become. Not all: there is large and robust anti-Netanyahu movement, true. But, again, his is not the longest Israeli premiership for no reason at all.
@Matt Bernius:
Hard to say what a face-saving compromise would be. And Israel certainly isn’t interested in being nice to Iran so that it can save face. They have the opportunity to destroy not only most of Iran’s nuclear enterprise (especially if Trump decides to give them an assist with the hardened sites), but also its ballistic missile enterprise, and the bulk of its Air Force and Air Defense Forces. The regime has already lost face through its own incompetence.
As far as forcing Bibi – well, the Iranians are currently getting their asses kicked. As a practical matter, it’s the Iranians who need to do the compromising. So far, what they’ve offered is simply to reenter talks. If Iran has some kind of face-saving compromise it wants to float, time is a wasting.
@DK: I should have been more clear that Trump can think Trump won, not the the U.S. could in any way win. For which see my comment in Dr.T’s later thread.
@DK:
So you and I are in agreement that, that’s worse right? I also question the size and especially the robustness of the anti-Netanyahu movement.
@Beth:
Well, they’re routinely shouted down, terrorized, and accused of being either self-loathing Jews or antisemitic. Even hostage families are not exempt from this hostility. So. The movement is probably larger still, than manufactured consent makes it appear.
@Andy:
Yup, which is why I would personally be surprised to see a negotiated cease-fire. Not only is Iran in a difficult spot, but as with Gaza the traditional Israeli “occasionally mow the grass” approach to Iranian containment seems like it’s no longer going to be the status quo. And I’m not sure what other realistic off-ramps exist with a post-10/7 Israel.
The US has 20 B2 bombers and a reported 20 bunker buster bombs. The bunker buster can penetrate 200 ft into the ground. Since these are precision guided, it is totally credible that a succession of the bombs could be used to “burrow” deeply into the ground, collapsing subterranean structures. The Fordo nuclear facility is 300 ft underground in a mountain with rocky geological formations, so actual outcome is uncertain.
If the US goes in, it will have to provide total air support for the B2 bombers, which are subsonic. Stealthy but slow.
Quite likely, Israel and the US would perform a joint operation to suppress Iranian defenses prior and during such a bombing attack on Fordo. To my recollection, the US and Israel have never been involved in a joint military operation. This will anger the Muslim world to no end in the wake of Gaza, and subject Americans abroad to retaliation —- even though the elimination of Iran’s nuclear capability will be privately celebrated in places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.
But this whole endeavor will have to be repeated in, perhaps, 10 years unless a “regime change” is also an objective. Undermining ALL this is the possibility that Russia or DPRK simply give Iran nuclear weapons material or nuke warheads for their hypersonic missiles. Russia and North Korea seem no longer bound by diplomatic restraint.
If that happens, Israel’s existence will be tenuous. In any case, Iran with hypersonic nukes is a catastrophic game changer for the region and beyond. This is the moment for key players on all sides, to choose a decisive action with unknown unintended consequences, or kick the can the road one more time.
@Rob1:
Addendum: Iran hasn’t been openly threatening anyone with their “nuke” capability for dirty bombs, although such posturing would likely follow their acquisition of a functional nuclear warhead.
But Russia has repeatedly threatened a nuclear response in recent times towards Ukraine, Europe, and “The West,” in a blatant attempt at intimidation and extortion.
It would seem that the West’s best effort would be support actions that lead to regime change in Moscow. And that means giving Ukraine continous, adequate support for its dire defense of sovereignty against a maniacal Russian dictator. Today’s Russia is not a “rational actor”, and they have lots of nukes.
@JKB: I don’t find it hard to figure out why Israel would do such a thing.
AND, I am not at all convinced that killing a bunch of generals will lead to a situation that is more to my liking, or your liking. A situation where the Middle East is more stable and peaceful and prosperous.
I mean, it just meant more trouble in Iraq for a long time afterward, and it is still doubtful whether it is more prosperous, right?
Blood leads to blood. Unless you are prepared to kill pretty much every Iranian and every Iranian sympathizer, they will be out there trying to hurt you. Maybe that’s a world you like.
The thing about Bronson’s line – other than the simple “movies aren’t life” – is that it is uttered in a context of a pre-existing total war. Each side was already trying to kill as many as it could, and civilians were exposed.
If you want to bring that back, you are a fool. Nobody who lived through that wanted to do it again. Nobody.
@James Joyner
Ironic that the same can be said of our own Good ‘Ol USA, looking at the likes of Pete Hegseth, Robert Kennedy Jr, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, etc. The unqualified, underqualified, incompetent, and ideologically compromised persons put into leadership positions by our current “regime” populates a long list. Very long. And sobering. Very sobering. One might conclude that we ourselves have been “decapitated.”
There is not going to be any win/lose in this game. Talking about Israel “winning” is pointless. At some point, geography is going to win. Israel has permission from the adjacent Sunni states to take Iran down. But Iran is not going to go anywhere and at some point those flyover countries are going to say stop. And Israel will stop.
Someone said that Iran will change when it changes internally. That is true. But when and how that happens is anyone’s guess.
@Matt Bernius:
The problem with “compromise outcome” is that there seems no way of finessing the Isreali (and US) demand for the end of the Iranian nuclear programme.
Iran conceding that is Iran accepting defeat, with no way to conceal it.
There isn’t even anything Israel and the US can really offer in exchange.
A “no invasion” pledge would be meaningless, as it’s not on the cards anyway.
Ending US and European sanctions? A trifle, if possibly useful.
And that’s about it.
Iran is not going to get an offer that it can resurrect Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Assad regime in Syria
Perhaps an acknowledgement of Iranian dominace in Iraq; though that comes at the cost of offending many Iraqis and other Arabs.
@Scott:
As is whether that change will be good or bad.
I think the only thing we can say with certainty is that the Kurds will get screwed over. Because the Kurds always get screwed over. The how and the when are unknown at this time.
@JohnSF:
I agree. This is not a time for diplomacy, Iran essentially surrenders or Israel continues to dismantle it.
You saw that Trump is now tweeting that ‘we’ have control of Iran’s skies, and ‘we’ know where Khamenei is but ‘we’ aren’t going to kill him, yet?
Trump will go down in history as the most diplomatically inept president in history. World history, not just our history. The man is a cretin.
@gVOR10:
That’s handy, because I’m going to. 😉
The British government had been trying to cajole the Unionists/Loyalists into a reasonable compromise ever since 1968.
And the general population of Britain pretty obviously didn’t give a damn one way or another.
The key changes came in the mid-1980s:
– it became obvious to SinnFein/IRA that the “armed struggle” was not going to work, due to British intelligence penetration and counter-operations
– a new generation of Unionists could see Northern Ireland was economically stagnant, and increasingly prey to criminal “loyalist” gangsters. and London indicated it was unhappy about perpetually subsidising Protestand stubbornness
– the EU provided an obvious framework for an “Irealand without borders”
– the Leadership in the Republic indicated thay would shelve claims to all Ireland, in return for “shared citizenship” options, and the promise of a “border poll” if opinion in the North made it sensible.
Combined, those factors, and a lot of grinding negotiating effort by John Major, Tony Blair, and their ministers and official, and the US contribution (George Mitchell did good work) were able to achieve a settlement most of the paries could live with, albeit grudgingly at times.
It’s difficult to see any comparable resoultion available between Isreal and the current rulers of Iran.
(Palestine might be another matter, if the external parties were willing to exert pressure, mainly on Israel in general and Likud in particular)
Trump subtext: Forget about my pathetic, anemic, ill-attended military birthday parade, and the simultaneous No Kings event attended by as many as 12 million people protesting my anti-democratic policies — look the threats I can toss about while revealing military intelligence to the world.
Yeah, our national leadership has been decapitated and replaced by a TACO chicken running around to-and-fro, hither-and-yon.
@Steven L. Taylor: “Man, this feels way too much like 2003.”
And in one other way — once again JKB isn’t going to be volunteering to join the army to fight the war he’s so desperate to have.
Occasional OTB commenter Cheryl Rofer has a good post at LGM Mostly blaming Trump for cancelling JCPOA and noting the Obama negotiating team was 150 people, mostly experts in relevant subject. Trump’s “negotiator”, Witkoff, apparently showed up without even an interpreter.
Rofer usually has good cat pics, but not for this subject.