One of your browser extensions seems to be blocking the video player from loading. To watch this content, you may need to disable it on this site.

To display this content from YouTube, you must enable advertisement tracking and audience measurement.

Reading time 1 min

In an interview with FRANCE 24, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said the US “should participate” in the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. “President Trump is going to do what’s best for the United States and I trust him to take the right measures,” he said. Lapid, who is usually a staunch critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expressed strong support for his rival’s decision to attack Iran.

Lapid, who is leader of the opposition centrist Yesh Atid party, insisted that Israel “didn’t declare war on Iran” and that “Iran declared war on Israel and the Jewish people decades ago”.

“They were rushing into nuclear capabilities and they couldn’t have those because it’s an existential threat to Israel and to the world,” he claimed, pushing back on the assertion that Iran was not actually building a nuclear weapon.

Read moreAli Khamenei: Backed into a corner, Iran’s ruthless leader faces fight for survival

The Israeli opposition leader added that the Iranian regime was “oppressing” its citizens, and “should have been removed years ago by the Iranians, by not the Israelis”.

The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program.

But Netanyahu has made clear another goal: he said the war with Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.

These comments came after an Israeli plan to assassinate the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was reportedly rebuffed by United States President Donald Trump.

It’s no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.

But what would things look like if the government did topple?

How is power wielded in today’s Iran?

Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.

The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.

As Iran was a constitutional monarchy before the revolution, theocratic elements were effectively grafted on top of the existing republican ones, such as the parliament, executive and judiciary.

Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.

But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a “closed loop” that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.

Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini’s death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.

While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.

The council also has the power to vet all candidates for president and the parliament.

In last year’s elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.

As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year’s field – the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian – turnout was below 40% in the first round.

Freedom House gives Iran a global freedom score of just 11 out of 100.

The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The all-powerful IRGC

So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.

Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.

There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.

Originally formed as a kind of personal guard for the supreme leader, the IRGC’s fighting strength now rivals that of the regular army.

The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC’s influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.

In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.

The IRGC is heavily enriched by the status quo, with some describing it as a “kleptocratic” institution. IRGC officials are often awarded state contracts, and are allegedly involved in managing the “black economy” used to evade sanctions.

Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.

In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.

Possible scenarios post-Khamenei

So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?

One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.

In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei’s son’s candidacy.

Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.

Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:

The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.

Indeed, many Iranians have long been disillusioned with their government – even with more moderate and reformist elements within it. Mass protests have broken out several times in recent decades – most recently in 2022 – despite heavy retaliation from law enforcement.

We’ve seen enough revolutions to know this is possible – after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.

It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.

Andrew Thomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto hold a press conference in Jakarta, Indonesia, on May 28, 2025. | Credit: Bay Ismoyo / AFP via Getty Images

A pair of longtime allies, France and Indonesia, are weighing in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At a press conference on May 28, the leaders of both countries pushed for an end to the war in Gaza via a two-state solution, but their proposal has gotten mixed reactions from the global community.

French President Emmanuel Macron has backed calls for a two-state solution that would recognize both Israel and Palestine. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, has supported a similar stance, with Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto saying his country will open diplomatic ties with Israel if it recognizes a Palestinian state. But some are worried that the nations’ next steps could get complicated.

Macron’s shifting stance

While Indonesia and France have both expressed interest in a two-state solution, the latter has been “forced to downgrade expectations” about an upcoming Middle East conference it is hosting with Saudi Arabia, said Politico. The Arab nations “want sanctions not statehood,” a European diplomat told the outlet, referring to potential embargoes placed on Israel to end the war. For years, French officials have said Paris was “on the brink of recognizing” Palestinian statehood, but “always cautioning it would only make that move if it advances the peace process.”

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

France, which is “home to Europe’s largest Jewish and Muslim communities, would become the first Western heavyweight to recognize a Palestinian state,” said Reuters. This could possibly give “greater momentum to a movement hitherto dominated by smaller nations that are generally more critical of Israel.” If “France moves, several [European] countries will follow,” said Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide to Reuters.

While Macron’s “stance has shifted amid Israel’s intensified Gaza offensive,” said Reuters, Indonesia’s view has largely remained the same: pushing for Palestinian state recognition. But Indonesia has now “made the rare pledge of recognizing Israel if it allowed for a Palestinian state,” said France24. This could mark a turning point for the two countries’ relations, given that Indonesia has “no formal ties with Israel and support for the Palestinian cause runs high there.”

Not the ‘right thing to do’

Israel has condemned France’s and Indonesia’s remarks, as the “Israeli government is unequivocally opposed to Palestinian statehood,” said The Times of Israel. A Palestinian state would be a “huge prize for terror,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. Some lawmakers in the Israeli “opposition have also expressed opposition in recent weeks, though some left-wing politicians have criticized them for it,” said the Times.

Israel has also “recently warned some key European nations that any unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state could prompt Jerusalem to extend sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria,” said the Jewish News Syndicate. The French-Indonesian initiative is not the “right thing to do,” said Benny Gantz, the head of Israel’s opposition National Unity Party, to the outlet. Israel “must remember the security considerations we have around us, they were there before Oct. 7, and they are definitely there after Oct. 7,” he said, referencing the 2023 Hamas terror attack that precipitated the conflict.

Even as France and Indonesia are pushing for an end to the war, both nations have made “efforts to deepen cooperation through joint training and capacity-building for Indonesian troops,” said the South China Morning Post, and Indonesia has said it would be willing to send weapons to the Middle East. But while the two nations have both pitched in, “stopping the violence in the Gaza Strip and to a lesser extent, the West Bank, depends on what the United States, Israel’s closest ally and largest military backer, decides to do,” said Politico.

Iran’s undisputed leader since 1989, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has weathered decades of international sanctions, near-constant regional tensions and protest movements he ruthlessly suppressed to maintain his iron grip on the Islamic Republic.

Israel’s unprecedented strikes on nuclear, military and infrastructure targets in Iran mark by far his most serious crisis yet, threatening both the clerical regime he has led for the past 36 years and his own survival.

In five days of bombardment, Israel has decapitated Iran’s top military brass, repeatedly struck its main nuclear sites, and killed many of Khamenei’s closest aides. It has also bombed other parts of the state and security apparatus as well as key energy infrastructure, triggering an exodus of Tehranis from the capital.

To display this content from YouTube, you must enable advertisement tracking and audience measurement. Accept Manage my choices One of your browser extensions seems to be blocking the video player from loading. To watch this content, you may need to disable it on this site. Try again 06:59 © France 24

While Iran has responded with deadly strikes on Israeli cities, the mismatch in firepower has left Tehran at the mercy of the Israeli air force, facing the possibility of a US intervention on Israel’s side – and with no major allies to call upon.

Echoes of Iraq

Many Iranians will feel they have been there before. The Islamic Republic was just one year old in 1980 when it was dragged into a gruesome eight-year war by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein – who at the time enjoyed the backing of most Western and regional powers.

The enduring trauma of the Iran-Iraq war persuaded Khamenei to build a coalition of proxy forces in the region that would engage in asymmetrical warfare and, crucially, deter Iran’s foes from directly attacking its territory. For further deterrence, the Islamic Republic also rushed to build up its missile and drone manufacturing capability, acquiring what was believed to be the largest missile arsenal in the region.

Those deterrents have long allowed the hardline ruler to keep up his rhetoric of confrontation with the US and project an image of power to rival Israel’s, while keeping conflict away from Iran’s borders and giving the regime a free hand to crack down on dissent.

Since the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, however, Khamenei has looked on impotently as his key allies – Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Hamas in Gaza, Yemen’s Houthis and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad – have been defanged, diminished or toppled, one by one. The demise of the “Axis of Resistance” has effectively stripped Khamenei’s regime of its outer defences, allowing Israel to bring the fight directly to Tehran.

Read more‘It’s the civilians who will pay the price’: Iranians prepare for the worst after Israeli strikes

Iran’s air defences took a first pummelling when the two bitter foes exchanged missile strikes last October. With Israeli jets now in control of the Iranian air space, and free to track down Iranian missile launchers, it is unclear how long the Islamic Republic’s other key deterrent – its ballistic missiles arsenal – can sustain the fighting.

‘We won’t take him out – for now’

Khamenei, 86, has remained typically defiant in the face of the Israeli onslaught, stating on Wednesday in a post on X: “We must give a strong response to the terrorist Zionist regime. We will show the Zionists no mercy.”

Israel’s success in killing several of his top aides, however, shows just how far Israel has penetrated Iranian defences and intelligence. It has also raised the question of whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could give an order to seek to kill Khamenei himself.

Speaking to ABC News on Monday, Netanyahu neither denied nor confirmed media reports that US President Donald Trump rejected an Israeli plan to assassinate Khamenei.

“It’s not going to escalate the conflict, it’s going to end the conflict,” Netanyahu insisted, adding that Israel was “doing what we need to do”.

The supreme leader has not left Iran since taking up the position and made his last foreign visit to North Korea in 1989 while still Iran’s president. His movements are subject to the tightest security and secrecy.

In a social media post on Tuesday, Trump claimed Washington was aware of Khamenei’s whereabouts but that it didn’t want him killed “for now”.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding,” the US president wrote. “He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.”

Nuclear boomerang

While his messaging has been contradictory and mixed, Trump appears to have welcomed Israeli military action as a means to drag Iran back to the negotiating table on US terms – which he has described as Tehran’s “unconditional surrender”.

Analysts, however, have cautioned that any attempt to assassinate Khamenei could have the opposite effect, precipitating Iranian efforts to go nuclear and thereby working against the stated purpose of Israel’s offensive.

To display this content from YouTube, you must enable advertisement tracking and audience measurement. Accept Manage my choices One of your browser extensions seems to be blocking the video player from loading. To watch this content, you may need to disable it on this site. Try again 11:50 © France 24

Over the years, the Islamic Republic has maintained a form of strategic ambiguity over its nuclear programme, which it has used as a bargaining chip in talks with world powers and as a warning to foes. According to Western intelligence assessments, this has involved reaching a higher degree of enrichment than is needed for civilian purposes but without actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Known for blending ideological rigidity with strategic pragmatism, Khamenei has shown a willingness to bend when the regime’s survival is at stake, including on the nuclear dossier. He notably offered guarded endorsement of Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers including the US, calculating that sanctions relief was necessary to stabilise the economy and cement his grip on power.

More than a decade earlier, amid the fallout from the 2003 Iraq invasion, Iran’s supreme leader had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, condemning nuclear and chemical weapons – though critics have questioned its real worth.

“The irony is that Khamenei, through his indecision and his supposed fatwa, has been one of the factors in Iran for not developing nuclear weapons,” said Rouzbeh Parsi, a Middle East scholar and senior lecturer at Lund University in Sweden. “If he is removed, it will destroy all chances of resuming negotiations and guarantee that Iran goes for nuclear weapons.”

Regime change

The mere fact that assassinating the Iranian leader is part of the conversation is a measure of how far Israel has pushed its paradigm shift for the Middle East, with at least the tacit support of the Trump administration. According to Parsi, it also reflects the lack of a clear strategic objective for Israel’s military operation.

Read moreWhat does Israel really want in Iran?

“Ultimately, the political solution is either a negotiation with Tehran or a removal of the Islamic Republic,” he said. “The Israelis have made clear they don’t want any type of negotiation with the Iranian regime, but they also cannot bring about regime change without US help.”

He added: “The US could indeed destroy the Islamic Republic, which begs the question that these wars never answer beforehand, nor explain afterwards, namely: what would replace it?”

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Netanyahu suggested that “regime change” could be the outcome of the Israeli strikes, while insisting that it would be for the Iranian people to bring this about. He claimed that “80 percent of the people would throw these theological thugs out” once they had realised the regime’s weakness.

Writing in Le Monde, Iran expert Farid Vahid said the “rupture between Iran’s people and the regime has grown so deep” the Islamic Republic can no longer count on patriotic sentiment to drum up support among the population. However, the Iranian opposition, both at home and in exile, remains riven by division, and while Persian-language television channels based abroad have broadcast images of groups shouting anti-Khamenei slogans, there have been no reports of mass protests.

“The idea that this ends in a popular uprising that changes the regime or gives power to someone in the Iranian opposition abroad has no basis in reality,” said Iran expert Arash Azizi, a senior fellow at Boston University, in an interview with AFP.

Iran watchers say a more plausible outcome would be for elements within the regime to seek to wrest control from Iran’s ageing supreme leader.

“Khamenei is at the twilight of his rule, at the age of 86, and already much of the daily command of the regime is not up to him but to various factions who are vying for the future,” said Azizi. “This process was already underway, and the current war only accelerates it.”