The news of the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, marks the end of an entire era for the Islamic Republic and at the same time opens a dangerous chapter of geopolitical instability in the Middle East.
The transfer of power in Tehran is not a simple internal matter.
It is an event with international ramifications, which is already causing intense activity in Washington and Tel Aviv, once again revealing the obsessive approach of the United States toward the Iranian political system.
The transitional period and the institutional framework
According to the Iranian news agency IRNA, following the death of Khamenei, Article 111 of the Iranian Constitution is activated.
This provision provides for the formation of a temporary leadership council, which assumes the responsibilities of the supreme leader until the election of a new rahbar by the Assembly of Experts.
The temporary leadership, as reported, will be exercised by President Massoud Pezeshkian, the head of the Judiciary, and a member of the Guardian Council of the Constitution.
This arrangement does not constitute a political innovation, but a constitutionally предусмотрed procedure.
The existence of an institutionalized transition mechanism indicates that, despite frequent Western rhetoric about “authoritarian chaos,” the Iranian system possesses internal cohesion and legal continuity.
However, the critical question is not who temporarily exercises power, but who will emerge as the new supreme leader and under what geopolitical pressures he will be called upon to govern.
Massoud Pezeshkian
The role of the Assembly of Experts
The selection of the new rahbar belongs to the Assembly of Experts, a body of 88 senior clerics.
Since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979, this mechanism has been activated only once, after the death of Ruhollah Khomeini, when Khamenei himself was elected.
The process is deeply theocratic.
The new leader must be a man, a cleric, with proven political competence, moral authority and loyalty to the principles of the Islamic Republic.
However, these criteria are interpreted politically.
The Assembly may exclude candidates considered “reformists” or excessively conciliatory toward the West.
And this is precisely where the external factor intervenes.
The shadow of Washington
The President of the United States, Donald Trump, stated that Washington “has a very good idea” of who could lead Iran after the change of power.
This statement is not merely arrogant, it is revealing of the longstanding American mentality of intervention.
The United States has a long history of involvement in Iranian affairs. From the 1953 coup against Mohammad Mossadegh to modern sanctions and military pressure, Washington treats Iran not as a sovereign state, but as a field for the imposition of strategic interests.
Recent statements about “successful strikes” and “neutralization” of Iranian officials confirm that American policy continues to rely on military escalation and not on diplomacy.
The announcement of a “preemptive strike” by Israel against Iran and the support provided by Washington confirm a dangerous axis of military pressure.
The argument of “national security” of the United States is repeatedly used to justify aggressive actions in a region thousands of kilometers away from American borders.
Five potential successors, one major favorite - Internal balances and external pressures
Among the potential successors stands out Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the late leader.
He is considered a figure with strong connections to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij militias.
A possible succession from father to son provokes reactions, as it resembles a monarchical transfer of power, something the Islamic Revolution supposedly overthrew.
At the same time, the fact that Mojtaba has been under American sanctions since 2019 indicates that Washington has already attempted to influence the internal political landscape of Tehran.
Sanctions are not merely an economic tool, they are a political message.
Other possible candidates include Alireza Arafi, Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri, Hassan Khomeini and Hashem Bouchehri.
Each represents a different tendency within the Iranian clerical establishment, from strictly conservative to more pragmatic approaches.
Their selection will not be determined solely by theological or ideological criteria, but also by who is considered more capable of managing tensions with the United States and its allies.
Mojtaba Khamenei
The argument of “destabilization”
In Western media, the narrative is often projected that the death of Khamenei will lead to internal destabilization.
However, the very existence of a constitutional provision for succession undermines this argument.
On the contrary, the greater threat of destabilization comes from external military actions.
American and Israeli strikes, as well as Iranian responses with missiles and drones, create a dangerous spiral of escalation.
In this environment, any political transition becomes more complicated.
Washington, instead of seeking de-escalation, appears to be using the circumstances to intensify pressure.
The rhetoric of “neutralization” of Iranian officials is not the language of diplomacy, it is the language of war.
Hashem Bouchehri
The broader geopolitical picture
Iran is a pivotal player in the Middle East. It maintains influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Any change in leadership directly affects the balance of power in the region.
For the United States, Iran is a strategic adversary that challenges American presence and hegemony.
For Israel, it constitutes an existential threat.
For Russia and China, it is an important partner in a multipolar international system.
Criticism of American policy does not arise from ideological sympathy toward Tehran, but from the observation that the unilateral use of military power has repeatedly failed to bring stability to the Middle East.
From Iraq to Afghanistan, interventions created power vacuums and long-term instability.
Possible scenarios
1) Continuation of the hard line: Election of a conservative cleric who will strengthen the alliance with the Revolutionary Guards and adopt aggressive rhetoric toward the United States.
2) Pragmatic shift: Emergence of a figure inclined toward controlled dialogue, without however abandoning the core principles of the Islamic Republic.
3) Internal conflict: Extension of the transitional period with disagreements within the Assembly of Experts, a development that could be exploited by external powers.
The most alarming possibility is not internal political disagreement, but external military escalation. If the United States continues the policy of “maximum pressure” and military strikes, the new Iranian leadership will face dilemmas of survival.
Historical turning point
The death of Ali Khamenei opens a historical turning point for Iran.
The transfer of power, although institutionally provided for, is taking place in an extremely tense international environment.
The statements of Donald Trump and the aggressive stance of Washington underscore that the United States continues to approach the region in terms of military power and imposition.
The Islamic Republic is called upon to choose a new leader under the pressure of external threats and internal balances.
Whether the next day will mark stability or further escalation will depend not only on the decisions of Tehran, but also on whether Washington will abandon its policy of constant confrontation.
In a world transitioning toward a multipolar order, the insistence on unilateral military solutions is not strategic wisdom, it is a recipe for prolonged instability.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments