The Israeli air strike which killed Iran's security chief, Ali Larijani, has removed one of the Islamic Republic's most experienced and influential policymakers at a critical moment.
Larijani was not a military commander, but he was a central figure in shaping Iran's strategic decisions. As secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, he sat at the heart of decision-making on war, diplomacy, and national security. His voice carried weight across the system, particularly in managing Iran's confrontation with the United States and Israel.
After the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on 28 February, Larijani struck a defiant tone, signalling that Iran was prepared for a long conflict. His death, now confirmed by state media, comes amid a broader campaign in which several senior Iranian officials and commanders have been killed within a matter of weeks. This pattern suggests a sustained effort to weaken Iran's leadership structure during wartime.
Despite his hardline stance against the West, Larijani was often described inside Iran as a pragmatist. He combined ideological loyalty with a technocratic approach, favouring calculated strategy over rhetoric. He remained deeply sceptical of engagement with Western powers but was also involved in key diplomatic efforts, including acting as an envoy in Iran's long-term cooperation agreement with China.
At the time of his death, Larijani was managing three major crises. The first was the ongoing war, for which he argued Iran should prepare for a prolonged struggle, contemplating the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz. The second was a wave of domestic unrest, spurred by economic grievances that escalated into widespread protests against the Islamic Republic. The third involved Iran's nuclear programme and stalled negotiations with Washington, both of which faced complications from recent military actions.
His assassination leaves these critical issues unresolved, transferring them to an as-yet-unknown successor amidst an increasingly fragile situation. While Iran has displayed resilience, partly by disrupting global energy markets, its airspace remains vulnerable to continued strikes, heightening the risk for any new leadership figure.
This power vacuum may push Iran towards greater military autonomy, as recent comments from President Masoud Pezeshkian imply that armed forces units may now be given broader authority to act if the senior leadership is incapacitated. This could create a more volatile environment marked by rapid decision-making with less coordinated oversight.
The leadership's struggle to manage succession further complicates the situation. Reports suggest delays in public announcements regarding new leaders, contributing to an uncertain atmosphere. In the immediate future, the most likely outcome is a more aggressive military stance during the war and stricter control of dissent at home.
Following Larijani's death, Iranian military chief Amir Hatami has threatened a decisive retaliation, further intensifying the precarious situation. Over time, a leadership that continues to lose senior figures could find it increasingly challenging to function effectively, particularly in a nation of over 90 million people.
The implications of Larijani's death extend beyond just a power transition; it deepens a leadership crisis that could significantly influence both the trajectory of the ongoing war and the stability of Iran itself.
