The assassination of the Supreme Leader of Iran would be the most violent earthquake that could strike Iran. Some believe this earthquake would be even more dangerous than bombing nuclear facilities or suffering a major regional setback such as losing Syria after decades of entrenchment there, or losing the ability to remain on the Lebanese side of the Israeli border in South Lebanon. Iran can digest a regional loss, but it is not easy for it to witness a power daring to assassinate its Supreme Leader.
The Middle East is a garden of horrors. A journalist there forgets many developments he has lived through, except assassinations. Perhaps because prominent assassinations place the concerned country before a difficult crossroads and a dangerous slope, especially when solid natural institutions are absent. After experiences imposed by the profession, I can say there is no truth to the claim sometimes repeated that assassinations change nothing. Because a journalist’s memory in this thorny part of the world is burdened with assassinations, comparisons impose themselves despite differences in stages and eras.
It is no exaggeration to say, for example, that the assassination of Ali Khamenei would be more dangerous than the assassination of President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen. It would also be more dangerous than the killing of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who spent more than four decades in the office of the ultimate decision-maker, turning the country into a celebration of permanent chaos and deep fear. The assassination of the Supreme Leader would also be more dangerous than the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, whose blood was shed along a regional fault line. It would also be more dangerous than watching the rope tighten around Saddam Hussein’s neck after a long and eventful era during which he pursued the nuclear dream, the dream of crossing international borders, and the dream of challenging the “Great Satan.” Incidentally, Saddam once refused a proposal to assassinate Khomeini while he was in Baghdad, arguing that Iraq does not assassinate its guests. After the victory of the Iranian revolution, he attempted to assassinate Khomeini, but he succeeded instead in reaching Ali Khamenei and wounded him in his hand.
The assassination of Khamenei would be more dangerous than all that preceded it. Not only because of Iran’s size and weight in the region, but also because of the executing hand, Israel, which it is said relied on US intelligence information that provided what it considered a “golden opportunity.”
Did Khamenei miscalculate the power of the “Great Satan,” as Saddam Hussein did before him? Did he also miscalculate Israel’s power despite the experience of the 12-day war? Did Khamenei consider that targeting him was a red line no one would dare cross? Did he overlook that the current occupant of the White House is the one who, years ago, decided his predecessors did not – assassinating General Qassem Soleimani at the edge of Baghdad airport? Did he forget that Donald Trump does not hesitate to violate red lines?
Iran reacted as if struck by an earthquake. It distributed its missiles and projectiles across countries that had previously opposed the use of their airspace to attack Iran. Thus, we saw Iranian fragments flying toward civilian targets in the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, and even in the land of the Omani mediator, under the pretext of targeting American bases. The harassment also included Saudi Arabia, which hastened to condemn the blatant attacks, affirming its solidarity with the targeted Arab states.
The war began by pushing Khamenei into the river of assassinations. Netanyahu’s government implemented a “decapitation” policy. This operation is more difficult than Venezuela and entirely more dangerous, just as the assassination of Khamenei would be more dangerous than what came before.
[by Ghassan Charbel in Asharq Al-Awsat]
Compiled and translated by Faizul Haque