TAKZIAH ON THE MARTYRDOM OF ALI LARIJANI, SECRETARY OF THE SUPREME NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
March 18, 2026PEMBUNUHAN TOKOH TERTINGGI OLEH AS DAN ISRAEL GAGAL MELUMPUHKAN KEPIMPINAN IRAN
March 18, 2026Commentary Analysis
By Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid
President MAPIM
18 March 2026
The recent wave of high profile assassinations targeting Iran’s top leadership, including figures such as Ali Larijani, reflects a clear strategic doctrine pursued by the United States and Israel: decapitation of leadership as a pathway to regime collapse.
However, both historical experience and current developments suggest that this strategy is fundamentally flawed.
- The Illusion of “Decapitation Strategy ”
The assumption behind targeted assassinations is simple: remove key leaders, create chaos, trigger internal collapse.
But Iran is not structured as a personality driven state.
It is an institutional state with:
●layered leadership structures
●parallel military systems (Artesh and IRGC)
●pre planned succession mechanisms
In fact, Iran has reportedly developed multi tier succession planning, with several replacements designated for every critical position.
This means leadership loss does not equal systemic paralysis.
- Evidence from Current War Developments
Despite the killing of senior figures, including top security officials, Iran continues to:
●launch missile and drone responses
●maintain command and control
●escalate strategic pressure such as actions affecting the Strait of Hormuz
Even analysts acknowledge that airstrikes alone cannot bring regime collapse without ground intervention or internal uprising.
In other words:
Leadership may be disrupted, but the state remains operational.
- Structural Resilience of the Iranian State
Iran’s political and military system was shaped by:
the 1979 Revolution
the Iran Iraq War
decades of sanctions and covert operations.
This has produced a system designed for survival under pressure.
Key characteristics:
decentralised command networks
ideological cohesion
rapid replacement of leadership
Historical patterns show that even when commanders are eliminated, replacements are installed within hours or days, not months.
This is not accidental. It is strategic design.
- Tactical Success vs Strategic Failure
Yes, these assassinations are: tactically significant ,
psychologically impactful , and operationally disruptive.
But they are not strategically decisive. Even Israeli aligned analyses admit such strikes cause short term disruption
but fail to dismantle core capabilities or long term resistance structures
In fact, the opposite may occur leadership becomes more hardened , decision making becomes more aggressive and retaliation becomes less restrained
- The Risk of Strategic Miscalculation
The greatest danger lies in misreading resilience as weakness.
Recent escalations show:
continued Iranian retaliation , widening regional instability and
disruption of global energy routes.
The belief that assassinations will end the conflict is not only unrealistic, it is dangerous.
It risks prolonging war ,
expanding the battlefield and triggering uncontrollable escalation.
- Conclusion: A War Without Decisive Outcome
The killing of leaders may create headlines.
It does not create victory.
Iran’s system is built to absorb shocks, regenerate leadership and continue functioning under extreme conditions.
The reality is clear:
The “head” may be targeted
But the “body” remains intact, armed and operational
This strategy will not decapitate Iran. It will deepen the conflict.
Final Reflection
History consistently shows Empires that rely on assassination to win wars often misunderstand the very nature of the systems they are confronting.
What is unfolding today is not the collapse of Iran. It is the beginning of a longer, more complex and potentially more dangerous phase of conflict.
And unless there is a shift toward diplomacy, the consequences will not be confined to Iran alone, but will reshape the entire region and beyond.
