Analysts Question Israel’s Strategy of Eliminating Iranian Leadership

Israel has systematically eliminated numerous high-ranking Iranian officials through targeted strikes, but defense experts warn this approach may not achieve lasting results. Historical examples show that militant organizations often continue operations and sometimes become more extreme after losing their leaders.

Israel has systematically eliminated numerous high-ranking Iranian officials through airstrikes in an effort to destabilize the Islamic Republic. However, defense analysts point to Israel’s historical experience with targeted eliminations, suggesting this approach has limitations and may sometimes produce unintended consequences.

Despite Israel eliminating Hezbollah commander Hassan Nasrallah, the organization continues launching rocket attacks.

Although Israel eliminated Hamas leadership, the organization maintains control over portions of Gaza and continues armed resistance.

Military strategists note that targeted eliminations have seldom been used against nation-states. While such operations may deliver concrete results that officials can present as successes — particularly in conflicts without clear conclusions — they typically fail to resolve the fundamental issues driving these disputes.

Jon Alterman, chair of Global Security and Geostrategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained that the effects of targeted eliminations typically diminish over time.

Alterman observed that Iran’s administration and armed forces consist of multiple interconnected organizations that have withstood repeated devastating American and Israeli attacks. “Even dictators need to rely on entire networks that support them,” he said.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was eliminated during the conflict’s initial phase. His successor, son Mojtaba, is considered even more hardline. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has maintained missile barrages against Israel and nearby Gulf nations — and successfully disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — despite losing senior commanders or forcing them into hiding.

Throughout its existence, Israel has conducted numerous targeted eliminations, yet Palestinian and Lebanese militant organizations have frequently survived and sometimes emerged stronger following the deaths of key figures.

Consider Hezbollah’s experience. An Israeli strike eliminated then-leader Abbas Musawi in southern Lebanon during 1992. Under his charismatic successor Nasrallah, Hezbollah developed into the region’s most formidable armed organization and battled Israel to a costly deadlock in 2006.

Nasrallah and virtually all his senior deputies perished during the 2024 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. The Iran-supported organization sustained additional significant casualties that year, yet renewed missile and drone operations against Israel within days of the current conflict’s beginning.

Hamas has lost multiple leaders. Israel eliminated founder and spiritual guide Sheikh Ahmed Yassin through a 2004 airstrike. Nearly every planner of the organization’s Oct. 7, 2023, assault on Israel has subsequently been eliminated.

Both organizations have persevered, driven by longstanding grievances rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

America has similarly employed targeted eliminations against al-Qaida and the Islamic State organization, eliminating Osama bin Laden during a 2011 Pakistan operation and IS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019. While both groups suffered major setbacks, this occurred only after extended conflicts involving ground troops.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu states that eliminating Iran’s leadership aims to weaken the government sufficiently for Iranians to revolt and replace it, preferably with a friendly administration similar to the pro-Western monarchy toppled in 1979.

No such uprising has materialized since the conflict began, following Iranian authorities’ suppression of widespread protests in January.

U.S. President Donald Trump has occasionally indicated the conflict seeks to promote a more moderate leader from within Iran’s administration, though the outcome might be a more radical figure — or complete disorder if the state collapses.

In contemporary times, one nation rarely assassinates another’s leaders.

Congo’s Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba was overthrown and killed in 1961 through a CIA and Belgian-supported conspiracy. The African nation subsequently endured decades of authoritarian governance, civil conflict and instability.

NATO’s 2011 Libya intervention enabled rebels to capture and kill longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Following more than ten years of conflict and instability, that nation remains fragmented. Iraq experienced similar turmoil when the 2003 U.S.-led invasion dismantled Saddam Hussein’s administration and resulted in his capture and eventual execution.

Yossi Kuperwasser, former director of Israel’s military intelligence research division, described targeted eliminations as potentially effective tools but not a “cure for all problems.”

“These operations by themselves don’t dramatically change the ability of those organizations to cause damage and to carry out attacks,” he said. “But it’s important for Israel to weaken its enemies.”

Regarding Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran, he noted that Israel has eliminated dozens of officials, permanently altering leadership structures. Concerning Iran, “maybe there’s not ‘regime change’ yet, but there is ‘change in regime.’ The people are not the same people,” he said.

A senior Israeli intelligence official informed The Associated Press that Israel’s leadership elimination strikes in Iran had compromised political leaders’ capacity to command military forces, develop policy and reach decisions. The official requested anonymity to discuss classified evaluations.

However, eliminating leaders may also produce negative consequences, radicalizing supporters, promoting more extreme replacements or transforming deceased leaders into martyrs with lasting influence.

Northeastern University political scientist Max Abrahms noted that data from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and Palestinian territories demonstrates civilian violence increases following targeted eliminations.

“Leadership decapitation is risky,” he said. “When you take out a leader that prefers some degree of restraint and had influence over subordinates, then there’s a very good chance that, upon that person’s death, you’re going to see even more extreme tactics.”

Targeted eliminations may create leadership gaps and opportunities for change, but only when combined with a comprehensive political approach, explained Mohanad Hage Ali, deputy director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.

“You can decapitate an organization or defeat it militarily, but if you don’t follow through politically, it doesn’t work. And it’s hard to see how this goes much further,” he said.