Mr Khamanei’s recent sermons have been chilling. “We will show them no mercy,” he said of Israel on June 13th, referring to the “evil, despicable, terrorist Zionist identity”. But he also has hinted that whoever or whatever might replace him could make things worse. His successors might abandon his fatwa against nuclear weapons that has prevented Iran from breakout, warn his advisers. A different leader, a military commander or a monarch, might rush to a bomb and wave the nationalist card. After all, it was the Shah who pushed forward Iran’s nuclear programme in the 1970s. Mr Khamanei suggests that his exit could spark violent struggles between the regime’s competing clusters of clerics, democratic reformists and the armed forces. Separatists might resurface in Kurdish and Azeri provinces, as after the fall of the Shah. A civil war is possible, as in Syria and Iraq, a prospect that terrifies many Iranians.
All this means that the mockery of the regime that followed Israel’s opening salvo is turning to fear for the country. Iranians share anonymous maps online of Tehran’s neighbourhoods slated for evacuation ahead of an Israeli attack. “It feels like we’re the only ones left,” says a carer after Israel struck the state broadcasting station close to her home. The authorities have begun rationing petrol. With no clear alternative leadership and ever more fearful, Iranians increasingly wonder if they are better off sticking with what they have. Yet an entrenched regime with nothing to lose could pose an even greater threat to its foes, neighbours and citizens.
Israel’s shock-and-awe campaign has humiliated the Iranian regime and revealed the failure of its military strategy. Some hope it may trigger an uprising or a coup d'état, in turn creating chaos or national renewal https://t.co/PxTO843ImH
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 16, 2025