Is it the beginning of the end of the existing Iranian regime?

The escalation that began on 28 February 2026 between the United States, Israel and Iran has pushed the Middle East into one of its most consequential strategic ruptures in decades. Coordinated pre-emptive strikes by Washington and Tel Aviv on Iranian military and strategic installations were followed by swift Iranian retaliation against United States facilities across the Gulf, including bases in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain. The assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has elevated the confrontation from a severe military exchange to a historic inflection point in the evolution of the Islamic Republic.

This war may not immediately culminate in regime change. Yet it may mark the beginning of the end of the Ayatollah-led order. Regime transformation is rarely sudden. It emerges when sustained external pressure intersects with deep internal fractures. In Iran today, both forces appear to be converging.

For years, the region operated within a strategic grey zone. Iran and Israel engaged in covert operations, proxy confrontations, cyber activities and calibrated strikes while avoiding sustained open warfare. That ambiguity gave way to direct confrontation in the 12-day war last year. The abrupt nature of the ceasefire indicated that a second phase would commence with better reconnaissance and preparedness. The second outbreak of hostilities on 28 February should be perceived in that context of months of preparation from all sides.

More from Opinion

After earlier cycles of escalation, all parties entered what appeared to be a cooling-off phase. In reality, it was a period of strategic consolidation. Intelligence networks expanded, reconnaissance intensified, and military positioning became more deliberate. The US reinforced its regional posture, deploying carrier strike groups such as the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford, alongside advanced aircraft including F-35 and F-22 platforms. Missile defence systems were strengthened, and troop readiness improved across Gulf states and parts of Europe. At the same time, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has indicated that it is adjusting force posture to counter “potential threats”, reflecting concern that the conflict could spill beyond the immediate theatre and affect European security dynamics.

Iran was equally prepared. Its rapid retaliation within hours of coordinated strikes reflects contingency planning and delegated command structures designed precisely for a decapitation scenario. This conflict has been framed by Tehran in existential terms. In that narrative, survival equals victory.

The assassination of Khamenei represents a turning point. As Supreme Leader, he embodied both the political authority and the ideological legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. His death shifts the confrontation into symbolic and theological terrain. The regime may seek to invoke themes of resistance, martyrdom and sacred defence to unify a fragmented society.

Indeed, the mobilisation of the Basij in significant numbers suggests that the leadership is pre-emptively guarding against internal unrest. The state appears determined to prevent any repeat of the widespread protests that followed the death of Mahsa Amini and, more recently, those led by the Bazaaris. The security apparatus remains loyal, and unless visible defections occur within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or other core institutions, public pressure alone is unlikely to threaten immediate regime continuity.

Yet the present differs markedly from earlier crises. When Major General Qasem Soleimani was assassinated in 2020, public mourning was massive. Red flags were raised, state funerals held, and vows of revenge declared. However, the strategic response remained limited. Within a year, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was also assassinated. Iran’s retaliatory capacity appeared constrained by structural pressures.

This raises a deeper question: does contemporary Iran possess the same regenerative zeal that characterised the early revolutionary years? Decades of sanctions, economic strain, factional rivalry, minority discontent and generational transformation may have eroded the regime’s adaptive resilience.

Iran is a deeply pluralistic society composed of Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, Baloch, Turkmen and other communities. Many minorities have never fully embraced the homogenised national identity promoted by ruling elites. Since 1979, ethnic mobilisations have been suppressed, often framed as threats to territorial integrity. Yet identity-based politics has evolved into a persistent arena of resistance.

Traditional supporters are also showing signs of strain. The bazaar merchant community, historically aligned with the revolution, has voiced economic grievances amid inflation and currency instability. Protest movements have evolved from targeting governmental mismanagement, as during the Green Movement of 2009, to questioning the regime itself. That distinction is critical.

Demographically, Iran’s median age of approximately 35 reflects a youthful society with global exposure and economic aspirations. Many young citizens seek employment, personal freedoms and stability. The heavy-handed actions of the Basij and security forces have deepened generational alienation rather than extinguishing it.

At the same time, Iran is not Iraq in 2003. It retains cohesive institutions, entrenched ideological frameworks and regional networks that extend well beyond its borders. Its security forces remain disciplined and centralised. Rapid activation of constitutional succession mechanisms reinforces that institutional continuity. Following Khamenei’s assassination, a three-member interim leadership council was swiftly formed, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, Chief Justice Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei and Ayatollah Alireza Arafi, a senior member of the Guardian Council. The speed of this transition demonstrates preparedness.

Yet leadership transition during active conflict inevitably intensifies internal jockeying. Even before this escalation, succession debates were underway. Khamenei’s death accelerates factional manoeuvring within the clerical establishment and the Revolutionary Guard. The long-term trajectory depends on whether unity prevails or fragmentation deepens.

From Washington’s perspective, there may be strategic value in discreet engagement with figures who could steer a post-Khamenei Islamic Republic towards less confrontational policies. Regime transformation, if it occurs, is rarely imposed solely from outside. Durable change requires internal actors whose interests align with altered external incentives.

The economic dimension further constrains Iran’s options. The Strait of Hormuz has long been Tehran’s ultimate leverage. While closure once appeared plausible, its strategic utility now seems diminished. Global shipping routes have diversified, with greater reliance on corridors such as Bab el-Mandeb despite higher costs and longer transit times. Disruption would still be significant, but the global system has partially adapted.

Iran’s more acute leverage may lie elsewhere. Rather than targeting hydrocarbon exports alone, destabilising Gulf states as investment, business and tourism hubs strikes at a different vulnerability. Iran’s recent rapprochement with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and its longstanding ties with Qatar, provided diplomatic space. Yet in an existential confrontation, regime survival will override economic pragmatism.

External actors face constraints as well. China holds significant stakes in Iran, but its economic interests in Gulf states are equally substantial. Overt support beyond rhetorical backing may not serve Beijing’s broader calculus. Russia, preoccupied with its own strategic theatre, may welcome regional distraction but lacks the capacity for decisive intervention.

Thus, the February conflict sits at a complex intersection of resilience and fragility. The regime appears prepared, security forces remain loyal, and ideological narratives are being activated. Yet structural exhaustion, economic pressure, leadership transition, minority alienation and generational discontent introduce vulnerabilities unseen in earlier crises.

The beginning of the end rarely manifests as immediate collapse. It unfolds through accumulated strain. Iran’s Islamic Republic may survive this war. But it will not emerge unchanged. The structural pressures now in motion suggest that a long era of Ayatollah dominance has entered an irreversible phase of transformation.

(Dr Manjari Singh is Associate Professor at Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies (MRIIRS) and Founding Member of Greater West Asia Forum, India (GWAFI). Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)