The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has been an obvious prime target for assassination by the US/Israel perhaps for the whole of his period in office, which began in 1989. It will have been just as or more obvious that his status in this regard would be amplified in the event of a fresh outbreak of war. Yet he was killed in broad daylight on the first day of the latest US/Israeli attacks, while at his office in his family compound.
Puzzling to say the least.
Not so, however, for mainstream media like the BBC who depicted the incident as you might expect, observing that ‘Iran knew the supreme leader was in the sights of its enemies and so the failure to identify and deal with these vulnerabilities in the intervening months suggests a deep failure for Iranian security and counterintelligence or else the ability of Israel and the US to continue to adapt their methods to find new ways of tracking.’
A stereotypical Western (Orientalist) response you might suppose, summarised as: ‘silly, naïve, weak (etc.) Iranians outwitted (again) by clever, sophisticated, and always superior Westerners’.
Not being an Orientalist, I wondered what other explanations there might be.
The most plausible it seems to me is that Khamenei chose to martyr himself for reasons that are not difficult to divine.
First, he was 86 and had served his country as its supreme leader for more than 35 years. His death would trigger institutionalised means for an orderly succession designed to ensure seamless transition.
Second, he was clearly a man of considerable resolve, bravery and principle who had stood up to the bullying and humiliations inflicted on his country and its citizens by the US and Israel for the better part of half a century and had refused steadfastly to give in.
Third, the leadership of Iran would have been keenly aware of the strategic importance of the manner in which the religious and constitutional leader of the country comported himself during these times of extreme danger. They clearly decided that it was better and more honourable (and strategically astute) for the supreme leader not to be seen by Iranians to be scurrying around like a terrified hunted animal from one place of safekeeping to another. Rather, they chose a business-as-usual approach knowing that if Israel and the US attacked, he could be killed.
Fourth, this approach would serve at least three purposes. It would deliver a very public ‘up yours’ to the US/Israel; in the event of his death, it would add considerably to the anti-US/Israel rage already felt by a majority of the Iranian population; and it would solidify support for the regime and help to unify the nation.
Fifth, for Khamenei, surely it would have been impossible to conceive of a more honourable way to die – in the service of your country and your faith.
If this hypothesis is correct, it means that for the US and Israel what was already likely to have been a drawn-out war that they could not win has been made much more so.
It is also somehow fitting that the current incumbent of the White House – whose hubris and arrogance seem boundless – might have fallen victim to this ‘rope a dope’ strategy.