Recent political developments following the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have triggered intense debate among scholars and analysts about the future of the Islamic Republic and the broader geopolitical dynamics of West Asia. Scholars, while speaking to Radiance, highlighted the region’s evolving political landscape, and examined the internal political consolidation in Iran and the strategic implications of the ongoing confrontation involving the United States and Israel.
Dr. Mohammad Sohrab, professor of International Politics at the MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, said that certain developments in the Post-Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have debunked the Western narratives on the Islamic regime in Tehran and have also exposed their delusional thinking about its nature, character and the capacity of its survival. The peaceful political transition and rallying of Iran’s religious scholars, general intelligentsias and civil-military establishments behind the new leadership has really sent the shock waves around the world especially to the Western capitals. This development does debunk the dominant Western political narrative that the Islamic regime of Iran is not socially and culturally constructed and therefore it does lack social, cultural and political legitimacy and that it is a kind of ‘remote imposition’ on the people with the help of brutal force and does suffer from any kind of social contract and therefore the consent of the people.
He said, the post-Ali Khamenei Iran does witness the powerful assertion of Islamic nationalism of unprecedented scale. Peoples are united on the basis of certain universal Islamic and nationalistic values which are the reminiscent of the popular movement which ousted Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iranian Revolution. This development does debunk in the most visible way the Western narrative that Iranian polity is essentially a totalitarian-authoritarian regime exclusively dominated by the Persian-speaking Twelver Shiites sect and is based on the logic of the denial of the basic rights and identity of peoples belonging to different ethno-religious and identity backgrounds. The way identity assertions are being couched and expressed in the post-Ali Khomenie Iran does expose West’s self-distorted and prejudiced construction that all kinds of centrifugal forces in terms of ethnic identity representing the peripheries are waiting for the opportune moment to revolt against the core leading to the fragmentations of the Iranian polity. One of the objectives of the decapitation of Shaheed Khomenie was to create this opportune moment. This has been proved a hallucinatory kind of illusion. The streets’ voice throughout Iran is a potent rebuttal to this kind of thinking.
Resurgence of the axis of resistance forces, in the aftermath of the forced regime in Tehran, against the quintessentially inimical and hostile forces against Islam inside Iran and throughout West Asia is definitely a development of far-reaching consequences with the huge potential to bring about paradigm shifts in the status quo. This definitely is going to embroil the West into the new structures of reality which will not allow the West so easily to impose their will over the masses and therefore will necessitate the imperative need for the initiation of a new diplomacy to resolve both the questions of Palestine and Palestinians.
Dr.Fazzur Rahman Siddiqui, Senior Fellow at the Indian Council of World Affairs, argued that the conflict involving Iran was not unexpected and had long been part of a broader strategic design by the United States and Israel. According to him, the war is an “imposed war” and a “war of choice” rather than a necessity. He maintained that the central objective behind this war is to establish Israel as the dominant and uncontested power in West Asia, enabling it to shape and influence the political, diplomatic, economic, and strategic orientation of the region according to its own interests.
Siddiqui further stated that the war is not merely about regime change in Iran but about restructuring the entire geopolitical landscape of West Asia. He suggested that the larger aim is to control the political processes and internal developments of regional states, similar to what he described as the situation in Iraq after the 2003 Iraq War. In his view, this approach reflects a broader strategy to ensure that countries in the region remain politically and economically subordinate to Israeli and American influence.
He also pointed out that before targeting Iran directly, efforts were made to weaken its regional allies and affiliated groups, including those operating in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. According to Siddiqui, Israel viewed the current moment as a rare strategic opportunity, believing Iran to be internally divided and internationally isolated. He linked this perception to domestic protests within Iran and the broader geopolitical environment, including strong political alignment between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump.
Discussing the consequences, Siddiqui warned that the war could have long-term global repercussions. Economically, he said, the conflict may create sustained instability affecting the world economy. Politically, the fall of the Iranian regime, though uncertain, could lead to a major power vacuum, triggering chaos and the rise of militias similar to developments in Iraq, Syria, and other conflict zones.
He also noted that the conflict may reshape political discourse in the Muslim world, particularly regarding the role of Gulf monarchies. According to him, public scrutiny of their political positions and alliances with Western powers could intensify, potentially forcing them to offer new explanations to their populations and to the wider Muslim community.