On the morning of February 28, 2026, the streets of Tehran were shaken by the sound of massive explosions, and columns of smoke rose from the presidential palace and other security headquarters. This was the beginning of the all-out war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, a war that was not merely a traditional military confrontation, but an attempt to reshape power and legitimacy within the Islamic Republic.
Following a series of assassinations targeting first-tier leaders, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, and Security Advisor Ali Shamkhani, in addition to senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guard and Basij forces, the regime suffered direct blows to its symbolic and political pillars. The fall of these figures created a leadership vacuum and a gap in symbolic legitimacy, as new leaders do not automatically inherit the symbolic capital that grants them widespread internal acceptance, increasing the likelihood of tension and conflict within the hierarchy of power.
The Iranian regime faces a continuous challenge in balancing influence among the Revolutionary Guard, the religious establishment, and the official political structure. The absence of a unifying figure to maintain this balance could transform implicit coordination into open conflict, leaving the door open for an unstable redistribution of power.
From a strategic perspective, the war was not merely a military confrontation or the elimination of leaders, but a process to weaken the regime from within and disrupt its continuity. Iran had maintained its political and security balance for decades, avoiding any direct provocation that would justify an external attack. However, the war began without a direct cause, crossing red lines and creating a new context that allowed for dealing with Tehran in a way that was previously impossible.
The series of assassinations of top leaders was not merely a military tactic, but a strategic blow to weaken symbolic legitimacy and disrupt internal power networks, opening the way for potential shifts in the political balance and the emergence of new forces within Iran. Israel explicitly declared that this series would not stop, targeting senior political, military, and intelligence officials, sowing doubt and fear within leadership circles and increasing the likelihood of internal tension and conflict.
The impact of the war cannot be understood without considering the deep disconnect between the regime's discourse and the sentiments of the Iranian people. The regime bases its policies on a revolutionary and symbolic narrative: hostility towards the West, defense of Palestine, and Iran's role as the protector of Shias in the region, relying on religious and political beliefs that prioritize external matters over internal ones. However, the Iranian citizen sees this hostility as uninspiring and not representing their direct interests. For them, the war means rising prices, resource shortages, deteriorating job opportunities, and an increase in social and economic instability.
The experiences of Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen serve as a model for what could happen to Iran. Citizens fear that the United States and external powers will not commit to protecting them, and that they will leave once their strategic objectives are achieved, leaving the country to face the consequences of the war alone. When asked about the reasons for this destruction, they find that the official narrative is based on a religious and revolutionary logic far removed from national reality, and does not explain their daily suffering or national interests. The result: the reasons for the people to stand with the regime disappear, and any leadership vacuum or disruption in power becomes an opportunity for the opposition to reorganize itself and transform social discontent into a real political force capable of challenging the official narrative.
From this perspective, it is clear that the war was not merely a military confrontation, but an attempt to redefine the relationship between the regime and the people and to disrupt the internal balance of power. The Iranian regime today stands at a critical juncture: strengthening its grip on power to ensure its short-term continuity, or risking opening the door to opposition and internal conflicts in the medium term. The next phase will determine the shape of the revolutionary spirit and the future of power, and the extent of the regime's ability to restore its symbolic and political balance or the possibility of new conflicts erupting within its upper echelons.
In conclusion, the war represents a strategic turning point that redefines power in the Islamic Republic, and sows the seeds of change within Iran at all levels, whether through disrupting the hierarchy of power, influencing symbolic legitimacy, or expanding the space for internal opposition that can exploit the disconnect between the official narrative and the imagination of the Iranian people.
شارك برأيك
"Sowing the Seeds of Disorder: How War Aims to Overthrow Power in Iran"