On Saturday morning, the United States and Israel carried out intensive airstrikes against Iran, killing its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who had ruled the Islamic Republic since 1989.
According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, the attacks killed at least 333 civilians across 18 provinces of Iran in at least 59 incidents. In response, Iran launched a barrage of missile and drone attacks at U.S. and Israeli targets, both military and civilian, across the region.
The Intercept spoke with Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, to make sense of what led to the attack on Iran, what we know so far, and how the situation might unfold in the days and weeks to come.
This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
What have we seen today in Iran and in the wider region?
Trump has entered us into a major regime change war against Iran, and from what we know so far, it seems like hundreds of Iranians have been killed, with a plurality of those deaths taking place at a girls’ school where at least dozens, maybe over 100 people were killed.
We don’t know exactly why that school was bombed, whether it’s a case of bad intelligence or misfire or something. But those were among the very first casualties of the war, and that really underscores the life-and-death stakes here as the war is unfolding.
“Those girls can’t come back.”
It’s just such a tragic loss, and it wouldn’t have happened if Trump had not made the decision to go to war. So, you know, regardless of what the reason was — whether faulty intelligence or misfire or whatever — those girls can’t come back. And that just really underscores the stakes of war, and why so many people try to prevent war from breaking out.
The Iranian government just confirmed the death of Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei. What does his death mean for Iran and the country’s position in the region?
Khamenei has been at the top of the Islamic Republic for decades here, and a big, huge part of each consequential decision that Iran has made for decades. Even before he was officially supreme leader, he was the president, and he was a key adviser to the first Supreme Leader, [Ruhollah] Khomeini. So he’s one of the original revolutionaries of the Islamic Republic. In a lot of ways, Iran wouldn’t be where it is today without him, and that cuts both ways. A lot of people think he’s held the country back. He’s been responsible for major human rights violations, and then has, you know, more or less picked a fight with the United States and put the country into a major trap here.
There’s only been one Supreme Leader succession before, and that was from Khomeini to Khamenei in 1989. And so it’s been a very long time, but there are processes in place. There’s a whole body whose whole job is basically to sit around and wait to choose the next Supreme Leader. It’s called the Assembly of Experts, and it’s made up of very senior figures in the Iranian establishment. It’s a little unclear whether they would do so immediately or would do so later, but at some point they will convene and consider who the next Supreme Leader will be.
This happening during wartime throws a lot of questions into the air, but we will see, ultimately, what the system comes up with. Khamenei appears to have prepared for succession within the Islamic Republic and has been directing different decision-makers to appoint assessors and have a plan of operation so that events can continue and the system can move on, even in the circumstances of his death.
Will it make a difference the fact that he was killed in an attack, rather than dying of natural causes, in how the succession might play out or in who is picked?
I think there is a concern that, you know, if you’re choosing a leader during wartime, is that going to end up being somebody who is more dogmatic and rigid ideologically? Or is it going to be someone who’s more pragmatic and might work to try to end the crisis? We won’t know until the person is chosen and they start to make certain decisions.
Trump has made clear that the goal of this operation is regime change, and has called on the people of Iran to seize power and on the security forces to work toward a transition. What are we actually seeing at this moment, and what might we expect to see in the coming days and weeks?
It does seem like they want to do regime change, but a kind of stand-off regime change, where they don’t put boots on the ground, per se, and then they encourage people on the ground to rise up and overthrow the government for them.
One situation that comes to mind is in 1991, where George H.W. Bush stopped at repelling the Iraqis from Kuwait, and then encouraged Iraqis to rise up. And tens of thousands of people were slaughtered by Hussein’s regime in the wake of that call to rise up. I think there’s a clear historical parallel to Trump’s approach to Iran thus far, where a lot of Iranians have already been killed after Trump encouraged them to rise up.
Even after strikes, you have to assume that at least elements of the Iranian government will maintain a monopoly on the use of force — meaning they still get the guns, and the Iranian people don’t. If this all leads to something where democracy somehow flows from bombs, well, we’ll see. I don’t think that’s a particularly likely scenario.
The [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] remains the strongest actor within Iran, both in terms of military capability and organization. Obviously, they have absorbed a lot of the blows in the initial U.S. strikes, but I think they are far and away the most powerful actor inside the system. So essentially, if the theocrats in the Iranian system are taken out, the IRGC are the ones in charge of much of Iran’s response and defense, and are best situated to fill any political and governmental void that may take place.
Based on how today played out, what can we divine about the logic of the Trump administration going into these strikes? What did they want to accomplish?
I think probably a lot of Americans were taken by surprise by this. But for those who read the news, you saw the biggest build-up in the Middle East since the Iraq War. And I think, reading the signs, it was either there would be a deal or a war.
This played out very similarly to June, where the diplomacy seems to have been a ruse. Trump seems to have been convinced by Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iran months ago, probably predating the protests and so forth.
Essentially, they’re high off the Maduro operation. They thought: Hey, here’s an adversary that is weak — there’s never going to be a better time to strike. I don’t know if they ever considered the diplomatic option. It seems like it’s quite possible that it was just a ruse to try to lure the Iranians into thinking they might get a deal.
You mentioned the U.S. abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In that case, the Trump administration quickly replaced Maduro with a puppet government. Does the Trump administration have its eyes on specific successors in Iran?
There have been a lot of reports of strikes targeting critics of the regime, such as Mir Hussain Mousavi, the Green Movement leader. His house, where he’s essentially been under house arrest for 15 years, was targeted in some of the initial strikes. That apparent eagerness to target past political leaders who may have had a falling out with the current government seems to be a signal that they’re trying to eliminate any potential people who could actually transition to democracy but still be a nationalist figure. I don’t know if they have someone picked out or if they don’t care, but I would guess that if that’s actually been part of the strike pattern that they have someone figured out that would be a pushover for U.S. and Israeli interests.
What does it tell other actors on the world stage that the U.S. and Israel carried out the attack amidst ongoing negotiations? And what message does it send to other major powers?
This tells any potential adversaries of the U.S.: Get nuclear weapons. Hedging is not a strategy, and giving up your program like [Muammar] Gaddafi is not a strategy. The only successful strategy is what Kim Jong Un did, which is to get nuclear weapons. He’s the only surviving despot of the so-called axis of evil.
It just seems like the Wild West in the international system right now. It’s just “might makes right.” That is also a message that will be heard by other global powers like Russia or China that might have designs on smaller, weaker states out there. If the U.S. is saying “might makes right,” they say, “OK, if that’s how you want to play it, then we’ll pursue our own interests too.”
There has been considerable unrest in Iran over the past month, with massive protests against the government and a brutal crackdown that has killed thousands. Given that opposition to the government, what do you think the reaction might be inside Iran to the attacks?
Iranians have long been caught between authoritarianism of their own government and militarism of foreign powers, and this is a pretty clear-cut example of that. You have this horrible crackdown from the Iranian government in January, and then a major military attack from the United States, all within 40 days of each other.
I think there has been a growing contingent inside Iran of people who are for military intervention. I don’t know how widespread that is, but I think it’s certainly something that unbiased observers have witnessed over the years. Certainly a significant majority of the population does not like the Islamic Republic and would like it gone. But then you get to the question of who endorses military force and how widespread that is — I don’t think that is a majority of the population. And if it were that, once the bombs started falling, that support would evaporate pretty quickly. I think a lot of the people on the streets who participated in the protests did so for domestic reasons and also would oppose the U.S. bombing the country.
What can we expect to see in the coming days and weeks?
Trump seems to think this will be over in a couple of weeks. I have no idea if that’s realistic. I would probably take the over, at least in terms of the reverberations from this incident, which are going to be enormous. I think those will likely be measured in years rather than weeks.
This is probably in the realm of dangerous speculation, but I feel like the Iranian government is going to have a harder ideological edge to it, and that, if you take out the upper echelons of the leadership, the people that are going to fill those roles are, I think, still steeped in a good bit of the ideology of the Islamic Revolution and opposition to U.S. hegemony, and have lived through so many confrontations with the West and with the U.S. in particular.
So it’s possible that they could replicate the Venezuela situation to some degree. But my assumption is that the people who step into the void are going to be more of Khamenei’s ilk, and may have less restraint as well, particularly on the nuclear program. Who knows where the nuclear program will be when all is said and done, but I think there will be very little holding Iranian leadership back from pursuing a nuclear weapon if any trace of the current government survives this.
#U.S #Killed #Ayatollah #Ali #Khamenei