Scenarios and Strategic Implications 

In the aftermath of US military strikes against Iran conducted with the aim of obliterating Tehran’s nuclear facilities as well as ambitions, Israel has subtly toned its rhetoric.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated the viability of ending the conflict if Iran pauses its retaliatory efforts. This shift does not signal a fundamental change in Israeli strategic vision but rather implies the growing toll of the confrontation Tel Aviv now faces amid ongoing missile exchanges with Tehran.

The United States, which initially distanced itself from the confrontation wary of rapid regional escalation, quickly moved to reassuring Tehran, through diplomatic backchannels, that regime change was not on the agenda. However, more recent remarks by the US president suggesting the possibility of a regime change if Iran ‘cannot make itself great again’ marks a clear rhetorical pivot. As such, the shift leaves open the future to more extreme and unpredictable phase of confrontation.

Despite Washington and Tel Aviv possessing overwhelming air and tactical superiority, ground indicators tend to show that Israel is entering a phase of genuine battle exhaustion. The effects of increasing economic burden and internal divides are becoming increasingly troublesome. 

Amid such backdrop, an extremely sensitive and high-stakes question arises: Will Israel move to eliminate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a decisive step to break the stalemate?

While the notion of targeting Iran’s supreme leader is not new, it has resurfaced amid the strategic cost of the war. Although the feasibility of such an operation remains uncertain, some Israeli circles are said to be weighing in the possibility under the pretext of a so-called “strategic resolution.”

The rationale for such a drastic option may stem from several strategic assumptions. The Israelis might think that Khamenei’s assassination would paralyze Iran’s decision-making architecture. It can also be concluded as a preemptive measure to contain potential Iranian escalation and stymie Iranian deterrence. Moreover, Israel might be convinced that it will not face much backlash from the international community, especially if the operation is surgically executed, without immediately visible fallout. If Israel resorts to such last resort action, it requires deliberating post-assassination scenarios.

Israel’s openness to ending the conflict—if Iran halts its retaliation—does not reflect a strategic shift, but rather the growing toll of the confrontation Tel Aviv now faces amid ongoing missile exchanges with Tehran.

Scenario One: System Paralysis and Sudden Collapse of Iranian Regime

The surgical removal of Khamenei along with other senior figures within the regime could result in a creating a vacuum in leadership and plunge the nation into institutional disarray. If Israel were to capitalize on such a moment by nudging the US into broader military intervention, the Iranian regime might experience a dramatic and rapid collapse.

Scenario Two: The Rise of the Hardliners

In the event of an emergency succession plan which might already be in place, Mojtaba Khamenei could assume leadership with full backing from the Revolutionary Guard and ideological hardliners. This would likely trigger another phase of “grand retaliation,” that could include measures such as intensified precision missile strikes on Iran followed by attacks on American assets and bases in the region. Another undeniable consequence would be activation of Iran’s regional proxies — from Hezbollah to the Popular Mobilization Forces to the Houthis, ushering in another era of covert operations or suicide bombings within Israeli and beyond.

This scenario would unfold under a calculated strategy of regional chaos, aimed at recalibrating the balance of power and forcing negotiations from a position of defiant strength.

Scenario Three: Internal Fragmentation and Prolonged Turmoil

Iran’s deep-seated internal crises ranging from socio-economic pressures to separatist undercurrents in Ahvaz, Kurdistan, and Balochistan could be exacerbated by the assassination. The resulting shock may catalyze ethnic and sectarian unrest, dragging the country into a state of decentralized civil strife. The regime might survive but lose effective control over population and territories.

The re-emergence of the idea to eliminate Iran’s Supreme Leader reflects the growing strategic desperation within Israeli circles, as conventional deterrence fails to impose a decisive outcome.

Among the three scenarios, the question is which scenario is most likely. The third scenario indicating internal fragmentation without the downfall of the regime appears most probable. Iran’s entrenched power structures allow it to withstand severe shocks, but most likely at the cost of becoming even more authoritarian and brutal. 

The second scenario, characterized by the rise of hardliners is also plausible, given the regime’s longstanding contingency planning. 

The first scenario, involving sudden regime collapse, remains the least likely and weakest, unless accompanied by decisive and sustained American military involvement. In all cases, assassinating the supreme leader would constitute a high stakes gamble. It could unleash a strategic shock across the region ensuing chaos that would be hard to bend to serve the interests of those who initiated it. 

Lastly, wars do not always end with a leader’s death; sometimes, they begin with it. Therefore, the pursuit of this extreme alternative may steer the Middle East into an uncharted and perilous paradigm.

Assassinating Iran’s Supreme Leader would be a gamble of historic magnitude—one that could trigger a regional shock with no guarantee of serving those who initiated it.