The demise of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, following targeted attacks by the United States and Israel, has ignited a fervent global debate regarding the future trajectory of the Iranian regime. While the world watches for internal shifts, international law expert Daniel Toledo, an honorary professor at the University of Oxford, posits that the established theocratic system is resilient, asserting that only a direct military incursion into Iranian territory possesses the capacity to dismantle the current power structure. This assessment comes as US and Israeli forces intensify combat operations, signaling a potentially prolonged engagement.
The initial hours after Khamenei’s death plunged the region into further uncertainty, with the United States escalating its military presence and announcing “major combat operations” aimed at neutralizing Iran’s armed forces and dismantling its nuclear program. Israel, too, confirmed its participation in these coordinated assaults. This marked a significant departure from previous engagements, with attacks commencing in broad daylight during Iran’s workday, signifying a deliberate and overt display of force by the allied powers. Reports from international news outlets indicate that these operations are planned for multiple days, not just hours.
Tehran’s constitutional succession framework
The Iranian political landscape is meticulously structured to ensure continuity, even in the gravest circumstances. According to Article 111 of the Iranian Constitution, the absence of a Supreme Leader triggers a specific succession protocol. This legal framework dictates that a council assumes interim power, comprising the current President, Masoud Pezeshkian, the head of the judiciary, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, and a third individual appointed by the influential Guardian Council.
This interim body is constitutionally tasked with the critical responsibility of orchestrating new elections. Their primary objective is to select a new Supreme Leader, thereby ensuring the seamless perpetuation of the theocratic regime. The design of this process underscores the profound institutional resilience built into Iran’s governance, making internal, non-violent regime change a complex proposition under existing legal mechanisms.
Historical precedents for regime change
Expert analysis frequently points to historical patterns concerning significant political transformations. “For there to be a regime change, which is what the United States wants and what Israel also wants, there needs to be a military incursion inside the country,” Toledo emphasized during a recent discussion. He further elaborated, “Historically, no country has experienced a regime change without an infantry incursion.” This perspective highlights a perceived prerequisite for the kind of fundamental political upheaval sought by external actors.
This historical observation suggests that the current military actions, while impactful, may not be sufficient on their own to fundamentally alter Iran’s deeply entrenched governance. The expert’s remarks imply that mere aerial bombardments or strategic strikes, without the physical presence of ground forces within Iran, might not achieve the ultimate goal of toppling the regime.
The formidable geographic challenge
Any consideration of a military intervention within Iran must contend with its exceptionally challenging geography. The nation’s diverse topography presents a natural fortress against external aggressors. “Invading Iran evokes the same sensation as trying to scale a wall while people are firing down on you,” Toledo described vividly.
The landscape is defined by its northern and western hills, alongside imposing mountain ranges that provide strategic defensive positions. A vast desert dominates the central expanse, further impeding rapid ground movements, while the remaining territories are extensively fortified. This natural defense system, combined with Iran’s prepared military infrastructure, makes any large-scale ground operation a daunting and costly undertaking for invading forces.
Regional instability and retaliation concerns
The immediate aftermath of the US and Israeli strikes saw an unprecedented wave of retaliatory attacks orchestrated by the Iranian regime across the Middle East. Explosions resonated in multiple nations hosting American military bases. This included strategic locations such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Iraq, demonstrating Iran’s capability to project power and instigate widespread instability across the region.
Concerns within the United States are mounting regarding potential Iranian retaliation, including the specter of terrorist attacks on American soil. These fears are underscored by Iran’s consistent financial backing of various proxy groups throughout the Middle East.
Hezbollah funding and global terror threats
One of the most prominent groups supported by Iran is Hezbollah, which reportedly receives approximately $6 billion annually in armaments. This substantial funding positions Hezbollah as a significant threat, not only to neighboring countries but also potentially to the United States. In cities like Houston, Texas, where Toledo was located during his analysis, authorities had already issued advisories to avoid large public gatherings, such as the traditional city rodeo, due to heightened risks of potential attacks.
Geopolitical chess: objectives and obstacles
The publicly stated objectives of the US and Israel center on dismantling Iran’s military capabilities and its nuclear program, with the ultimate ambition of catalyzing a regime change. However, the path to achieving these goals is fraught with significant geopolitical and logistical obstacles. The resilience of the Iranian political structure, coupled with its formidable geographic defenses and proven capacity for regional retaliation, paints a complex picture.
The international community remains divided on the long-term implications of such aggressive military actions. While some advocate for a decisive overthrow of the current regime, others caution against the potential for prolonged conflict, widespread civilian casualties, and further destabilization of an already volatile region. The current operations are poised to test the limits of military intervention in shaping the future of a deeply entrenched state.