listen to this article6 minutes
information
A common tactic used in war is to try to decapitate the enemy’s leader. While such a strategy may work in certain circumstances, it has proven to be a disastrous choice in the Middle East.
Indeed, in the midst of war, the assassination of an enemy leader may rapidly increase popularity. Indeed, US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been in the spotlight for their supposedly “successful” assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
But killing an 86-year-old man, who was already planning his succession due to poor health, is no small feat considering the overwhelming firepower that both the United States and Israel possess. More importantly, removing him does not necessarily mean that a leader or administration that considers the interests of Israel and the United States will follow.
That’s because the assassination of a leader will not lead to a peaceful outcome in the Middle East. They could open the door to more radical successors and chaos leading to violence and chaos.
A quick look at recent history shows that whenever Israel and the United States have tried the idea of ”decapitation” of leadership in various conflicts in the region, the results have been disastrous. In the case of Iraq, its leader Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. forces, handed over to allied Iraqi forces, and executed. This ended a regime that was openly hostile to Israel, but also opened the door for pro-Iranian forces to take over.
As a result, over the next two decades, Iraq served as a springboard for Iran’s regional proxy strategy, building a powerful network of non-state actors that threatened U.S. and Israeli interests.
The security vacuum created by the US invasion gave rise to various insurgencies, the most devastating of which was the rise of ISIL (ISIS), which swept through the Middle East, killed thousands of innocent people, including American citizens, and triggered a massive wave of refugees towards US and Israeli allies in Europe.
Another good example is Hamas. Since the early 2000s, Israel has repeatedly attempted to assassinate its leaders. In 2004, it succeeded in killing its founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and his successor, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who was considered a moderate. After several assassinations, Yahya Sinwar was elected leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and continued to plan the October 7, 2023 attack.
Hezbollah has a similar history. Hassan Nasrallah, the late leader who succeeded in steering the group’s expansion into a formidable non-state power, took over after Israel assassinated his predecessor, Abbas al-Moussawi.
Two and a half years of war and mass killings of their leaders may now have devastated both armed groups, but Israel has failed to assassinate the idea of resistance to occupation behind them. The current lull in fighting may be the calm before a new storm.
In Iran’s case, whoever replaces Ayatollah Khamenei is unlikely to be as open to negotiations as he is. Remarks by Omani interlocutors during talks in Muscat and Geneva indicated that Iran under Khamenei was ready to make significant concessions on the nuclear issue. It is unlikely that his successor will have the political wherewithal to follow suit.
If Israel and the United States continue their campaign and truly push for the collapse of the Iranian state, it is anyone’s guess what will emerge from the ensuing chaos. But if recent experiences in Iraq and Libya are followed, an Iranian security vacuum will have a devastating impact on America’s allies in the region and Europe.
This raises the pertinent question of what Israel and the United States intend to gain from a “decapitation” strategy in Iran.
For Prime Minister Netanyahu, the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei was a huge success. Facing a crucial election that could mean the end of his political career and possibly imprisonment on four corruption charges, gaining popularity and votes in the short term is valuable. Israeli leaders have little thought or planning for the medium to long term and do not have to endure the consequences of military adventurism abroad. After all, Israeli society is very supportive of it.
But for Trump, the benefits are less obvious. He begins to brag in front of his people, who don’t want to go to war, that he killed the 86-year-old ailing leader of a distant country. As the cost-of-living crisis continues in the United States, he is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to fight a war against a country that poses no immediate threat, a war that many Americans increasingly identify as “Israel’s war.”
Rather than displaying power, Trump is showing weakness and risking being seen as the American president who was tricked into starting a costly war to ensure the political survival of another country’s prime minister.
For now, it’s clear that the president of the United States is drawing the line at wearing America’s boots. At some point, he will have to halt artillery operations and withdraw U.S. forces. He will leave behind a disaster for which America’s allies in the region will bear the brunt. America’s regional alliances will certainly take a hit. Domestic viewers are sure to ask questions.
This is a new U.S. military adventure in the region that will cost American taxpayers, American lives, and foreign policy influence for nothing in return. The hope is that Washington may finally learn the lesson that assassination and decapitation strategies are ineffective.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
