By Anjali Sharma
WASHINGTON – Iran on Monday named Mojtaba Khamenei to succeed his late father Ali Khamenei as the supreme leader of Iran, signaled that hardliners remain firmly in charge in Tehran.
Iranian institutions and politicians from the foreign ministry to lawmakers, issued statements expressed their allegiance to the country’s new supreme leader as the war entered its 10th day and fresh missile and drone strikes reverberated across West Asia.
The western countries are seeking to overthrow the current regime in Iran.
West has been trying hard to get the Islamists-led regime changed in Iran.
To promote an anti Islamist and anti-Shiite stance, it raised concern over the denial of democracy in the country, repression against women, social stagnation and economic decay. But the underlying factor has always been and is how to control the oil and mineral wealth of Iran and make the country bow to the capitalist ideology.
US-Israeli intervention was led by a rhetorical campaign both by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged Iranians to “rise up”.
The assassinations of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other high-level Iranian officials were celebrated as a major achievement of the alliance.
Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, Professor in Economics of the Middle East, at Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany he view that the assumption that the removal of a central figurehead will lead to a “short and decisive rupture” followed by a smooth transition is far from certain.
In fact, Iran, after Ayatollah Khamenei may not be at all what the proponents of intervention desire to see.
If we take a wider look at West Asia, then we’ll be able identify three countries, where external intervention in regime change has not resulted in a smooth transition and stability. Iraq, Syria and Libya have only witnessed chaos not stabilization. Whereas the fourth country in the region, about which most negative apprehensions were being made, has been able to negate these assumptions, and the Taliban seem to have consolidated their control in the country.
Iraq has seen various insurgencies and civil war following the US invasion in 2003; despite democratisation efforts, the country is still unable to return to pre-2003 stability.
Libya’s collapse following a NATO-led intervention in 2011 has not resulted in a cognisable recovery in sight. The country remains split between two centres of governance – in Tripoli and Benghazi.
Syria, after the fall of basher of Al Assad and emergence of Al Sharaa on the political scene of the country, has not been able to foster a new welfare regime of the people but has seen Al Sharaa propped-up by the US administration.
In the case of Iran is different from these countries in many ways. The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei may have a profound impact which may not result in a state collapse.
Within the symbolic universe of Shia Islam, to which the majority of Iranians belong, Khamenei’s death can be interpreted in light of the sect’s belief in martyrdom and the Karabala story.
Death at the hands of perceived enemies of Islam can be framed as redemptive passage rather than defeat said Prof Farzanegan.
The big question for Iran is whether administrative cohesion and territorial integrity can be preserved. Achieving this depends primarily on the survival of the “deep state”, the resilient civil bureaucracy and technocratic class that manages the country’s fiscal and essential services.
The territorial integrity rests on the continued unity between the regular army (Artesh) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Prof Farzanegan stated.
In worst-case scenario, internal turmoil is likely to follow the fault lines of existing grievances. In the borderlands, long-simmering insurgencies among the Baluch, Kurd and Arab populations could escalate into full-scale separatist conflicts as central control diminishes.
In recent weeks, the saying “a bitter ending is better than endless bitterness” has been invoked by some to justify foreign military intervention in Iran. Such perceptions seem to rest on the belief that a quick resolution can be achieved through military means.
For the people of Iran, the “bitter ending” of a regime may not be the final act of their suffering, but the opening chapter of a new, structurally entrenched era of “endless bitterness” that could haunt the region for decades to come.
As far as fissures appearing between the majority Shia and minority Sunnis, in Iran are concerned, this also does not seem plausible. As recently as March 5, hundreds of Sunni scholars in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchistan declared Jihad against the Zionist entity and its backers, while voicing support for Iran’s armed forces amid ongoing tensions.
A group of 660 Sunni scholars in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchistan province issued a statement condemning the ongoing US-Israeli aggression and calling for resistance against it.
The scholars stated that the religious and historical duty requires not remaining silent in the face of what they described as the aggression against the country. They further issued a religious ruling declaring that “jihad against the criminal Zionist entity and its arrogant backers is a major obligation.”
The statement urged residents of the province to remain vigilant and not fall prey to what the scholars described as plots and sedition by hostile groups and supporters of the Pahlavi family, while announcing full support for Iran’s armed forces and the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps in defending the country’s security.
Shiite scholars were also quick to announce a fatwa of Jihad against the US and “Israel” following the attack on Iran and martyrdom of Sayyed Ali Khamenei.
Scholars endorsed the fatwa included Sheikh Javadi Amoli, Sheikh Makaram Shirazi, Sheikh Nouri Hamedani, and Iraq’s Sayyed Hashem al-Haidari.
Supreme Council and IRGC will ensure the continuity of the current regime in Iran, belying the fallacious propaganda and wishful thinking of the US-led western powers and Zionist powers.
