&w=3840&q=100)
As US joins Israel's war against Iran, is Ayatollah's time coming to end?
As the United States has joined Israel's war against Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is facing an existential crisis to his regime. In a far cry from the goal of destroying Israel and exporting the Islamic Revolution globally, he now has no good options to even keep his regime afloat. read more
'We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry 'there is no God but Allah' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle,' Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, swore in 1970s.
In 1979, Khomeini put Iran on the path to destroy Israel and export the Islamic Revolution to the world. In 2025, his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has his back to the wall and is staring at the potential collapse of his regime.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
While Israel had already degraded the Iranian power to the extent that nearly all air defences had been taken out, the military brass had been wiped out, and many missile launchers and weapon storage sites had been destroyed, US airstrikes on Saturday struck a blow to Khamenei's ultimate leverage of the nuclear programme.
The Islamic Republic is currently at its weakest point and Supreme Leader Khamenei does not have many options as the war is now not just with Israel but with the United States and the fear of the collapse of regime change is very real, says Alvite Ningthoujam, a scholar of West Asia at the School of International Studies (SIS), Symbiosis International University (SIU), Pune.
For decades, Iran did not draw power just from its military and intelligence apparatus, which was second in the region only to that of Israel, but also from the 'Axis of Resistance' it sponsored — the bloc comprised groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis. The bloc stands battered and is in no position to help Iran.
For Israel, 'Operation Rising Lion' that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched last week was not a new war but merely the latest episode in the war that the Islamic Republic began in 1979, so the current state of the regime, whether it's the degradation of proxies or strikes on its nuclear sites, is the result of its policies going back to the foundation of the regime, says Daphne Richemond Barak, a professor of international relations at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at Israel's Reichman University.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Khamenei faces regime change fears as Trump & Netanyahu join hands
In a far cry from 1989 when Khamenei took over as the Supreme Leader of Iran and assumed the responsibility of destroying Israel, exporting the Islamic Revolution globally, and weakening the West, his sole responsibility has now been reduced to ensuring the survival of the regime.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, is hell-bent on toppling Ayatollah Khamenei's regime and it remains to be seen if President Trump will support that objective as well, says Ningthoujam, the Deputy Director at SIS, Pune.
Regime change is, however, easier said than done. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no indication that Israel or the United States are about to launch a ground offensive. Unlike Syria, there are no opposition forces whom they may support militarily and financially against the regime.
'Even as Supreme Leader Khamenei appears to be secure from immediate regime change, the threat is there and he is under unprecedented pressure, and it is under such pressure that he takes major actions. The future of the regime may rest on whether he now decides to fight to the end, develop a nuclear weapon, or make a deal to live to fight another day,' says Ningthoujam.
ALSO READ: As Netanyahu dares Khamenei, here's timeline of Israel-Iran conflict
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The fate of Khamenei's regime may rest on how the external pressure affects internal faultlines in Iran. It is no secret that Iranians despise the conservative, dictatorial regime — as was seen in 2022-23 when millions took to the streets in the monthslong uprising after the regime's morality police murdered a young woman for purportedly not following the hijab law. However, the external pressure can work both ways.
While many accounts suggest that Iranians in and out of the country are quietly cheering at the weakening of the regime, some suggest that there is a brewing rallying around the flag effect as many Iranians interpret the Israeli offensive as not one directed at the regime but at the country.
The regime change in Iran may not be the same as Iraq or Afghanistan where an invading force overthrew the ruler or like Syria where armed groups opposed to the regime overthrew it, but could be much more subtle, suggests Ningthoujam.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'If the Supreme Leader is assassinated along with the remaining leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), there would be a leadership vacuum. The rise of a new crop of leaders would amount to a regime change. Even if the Supreme Leader remains but the regime is weakened and public anger against extremists swells, the moderates may come to power and give the country a new direction. That would be as good as regime change,' says Ningthoujam.
Khamenei has no good options
With his back to the wall, Khamenei has no good options.
Whether Khamenei makes a deal and surrenders the nuclear programme to ensure the regime's survival or puts up a fight, the chances are that he would emerge as a loser both internally and externally.
If Khamenei gives up nuclear enrichment as the international community has demanded, he would give up his final leverage and risk meeting the same fate as Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who gave up the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme in 2003 in a deal with the United States and United Kingdom and was still ousted in Western military intervention in 2011.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
If Khamenei keeps his nuclear programme, he would risk plunging his country deeper into the conflict. Neither Netanyahu nor Trump would have any issue from bombarding Iran until it becomes a wasteland like the Gaza Strip.
ALSO READ: Inside Netanyahu's campaign to destroy Iran's bunker nuclear sites
Either way, Supreme Leader Khamenei would be at the risk of losing his legitimacy and that of the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Revolution, says Ningthoujam.
For Israel, however, Khamenei's choice may not matter — at least for now.
Even though Prime Minister Netanyahu set the destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities and the collapse of the Iranian regime as principal objectives, the main idea behind the offensive was the degradation of the Iranian regime and that has been achieved, says Prof. Barak, the international relations scholar at Israel's Reichman University.
Critics of the US and Israeli actions have said that strikes on the Iranian nuclear programme would leave Khamenei with no choice but to make a nuclear weapon to restore deterrence as conventional deterrence stands eroded. Barak does not agree.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Barak says, 'The attacks have degraded the Iranian ability to make nuclear weapons. Even if the knowledge continues to exist, the means no longer exist whether it is a strong regime at home or proxies abroad. There were four broad outcomes with Operation Rising Lion and at least three of them are about to be realised.'
Barak lists the four outcomes expected from the Operation Rising Lion at the onset: the United States entering the war on Israel's sides and attacking Iran's underground nuclear sites as that capability did not exist with Israel; Israeli strikes in the absence of direct US involvement setting back the Iranian nuclear programme by many years, making its revival next to impossible; Israeli strikes and possible US participation pushing Iran into making a deal favourable to Israel; and the chaos inside Iran from the war leading to an uprising against the regime.
While the first two potential outcomes have been achieved and the third may still be achieved as Trump has pitched the strikes as a way to bring Iran to the negotiating table. The fourth potential outcome depends on how the situation evolves.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Until now, it was a proxy war. Now, Israel has gone for the head of the octopus — Iran is an octopus and not a snake. If you cut a tentacle, like Hezbollah or Hamas, it would regrow. Therefore, Israel has now struck the head of the octopus in Iran. The international community may be concerned about chaos at the fall of the regime in Iran, but Israel is not. Israel has been in an existential war with Iran since 1979,' says Barak.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran FM Araghchi issues warning to Trump after U.S. strikes on nuclear sites
Published on Jun 22, 2025 07:16 PM IST Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi delivered a fiery address condemning the U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear sites, calling the strikes 'outrageous' and warning of 'everlasting consequences' for American actions. Araghchi accused the U.S. of violating international law and the UN Charter, asserting Iran's right to defend its sovereignty by all means necessary. The speech came after President Trump announced successful strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. Watch for more


Scroll.in
29 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
How the Israel-Iran conflict could impact India
On June 13, the Israeli military began striking what it claimed were nuclear targets and other sites in Iran, with the aim of stalling Tehran's nuclear programme. Iran retaliated with missile attacks on Israel. The official toll in Iran is at least 430 so far, while at least 25 persons have died in Israel. The continued exchange of fire has led to concerns of a wider regional conflict that the United States could get drawn into. Washington is an ally of Israel and acts as a guarantor of the country's security. Tehran has rejected US President Donald Trump's demand for an ' unconditional surrender ' and vowed to fight back. The prevailing uncertainty has led to a spike in global oil prices. The price of benchmark Brent crude had jumped to $78 per barrel by Thursday from $69 per barrel on June 12, the day before the conflict began. But the spike was not because of Israeli military's strikes reportedly on the Shahran oil depot in Tehran and one of Iran's largest refineries in Shahr Rey. These actions have little impact on Iranian energy exports. Instead, the spike in prices primarily stem from concerns about the possible blocking of the Strait of Hormuz amid the conflict. The closure could threaten global energy security. The chokepoint The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterbody that connects the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. In 2024, an average 20 million barrels of oil was transported through the strait every day. That was about one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption. This makes the Strait of Hormuz one of the most strategically important chokepoints. Iran has in the past threatened to block the waterbody in retaliation to pressure from the West. On Sunday, the Iranian Parliament decided that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, state-run Press TV quoted lawmaker Major General Kowsari as saying. The final decision will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council, the member of the parliamentary national security commission added. Unlike other chokepoints such as the Suez Canal or the Strait of Malacca, there is no practical alternative for fuel supplies to bypass the Strait of Hormuz in large volumes. Cargo ships are already sailing closer to the Omani coast and have been advised by maritime agencies and governments to avoid Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported on Wednesday. An attempt to shutter the strait will not go unchallenged because of the regional powers' strategic interest in keeping fuel supply open. But the ensuing military confrontation may still disrupt supplies to some extent. India's interest When Tel Aviv and Tehran last exchanged missile fire in October, former Indian diplomat Navdeep Suri had told Scroll that if the conflict escalated and became an all-out war, Iran, feeling threatened, had the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz. In that case, New Delhi will be staring at a scenario that will 'directly impact India's energy security', he had said. 'A very large chunk of India's energy supplies come from there and that could really be serious for us,' explained Suri, who served as India's ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. 'It's in our interest that it doesn't get out of hand.' India consumes 5.5 million barrels of crude per day for refining. Of this, 1.5 million barrels come through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. If the strait gets blocked, Amena Bakr, the head of Middle East and OPEC+ insights at analytics firm Kpler, told CNBC International on June 13 that oil prices could jump to three-digits. To put the impact of such a scenario into context: a spike of every $10 per barrel drives up inflation in India by about 0.5%, financial services company Morgan Stanley had estimated in April 2024. But Puri told NDTV that closing the strait was not in Iran's own interest. Yet, he said, India remained comfortably placed to meet its fuel needs, adding that New Delhi can tap into alternative supplies if needed. Here is a summary of the week's other top stories. Countering Trump's claims. Prime Minister Narendra Modi told United States President Donald Trump that India will never accept mediation to resolve tensions with Pakistan. The topic came up during a phone call when Trump asked for the details about India's military strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on Pakistan in May, said Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Trump was told that India had agreed to the ceasefire only on Islamabad's request, said Misri. The 'halt to military action was directly between India and Pakistan', the foreign secretary quoted Modi as having reiterated. The call between the two leaders came against the backdrop of the US president repeatedly claiming that he helped settle the tensions between India and Pakistan. New Delhi has rejected Trump's assertions. , writes Rohan Venkataramakrishnan A thaw in relations. India and Canada agreed to reinstate high commissioners in each other's capitals. This was announced after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney met on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit. Other diplomatic steps 'to restore stability in the relationship' will 'follow in due course', said New Delhi. In October, New Delhi and Ottawa expelled several diplomats amid frosty bilateral relations. Ties between India and Canada strained in September 2023 after Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister at the time, told his country's Parliament that intelligence agencies were actively pursuing 'credible allegations' tying agents of the Indian government to the murder of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada. New Delhi has rejected Canada's allegations. The language debate. Opposition leaders criticised Union Home Minister Amit Shah for saying that those who speak English in India will soon feel ashamed. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that English was 'not a barrier, but a bridge', adding that the language provides employment and boosts people's self-confidence. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP Kanimozhi said to Shah that 'the only thing to be ashamed of is imposing your will on the people and trying to destroy the pluralism of India'. Shah's comment on Thursday came against the backdrop of several state governments and regional parties accusing the Union government of imposing Hindi through the National Education Policy's three-language formula. Also on Scroll this week for a curated selection of the news that matters throughout the day, and a round-up of major developments in India and around the world every evening. What you won't get: spam.


News18
31 minutes ago
- News18
Nobel Recommendation To Condemnation: How Iran Strikes Strain Pakistan's Ties With US
Last Updated: The country, which had recommended US President Donald Trump's name for the 2026 Nobel Peace prize on June 21, condemned the strikes on Tehran on June 22 The United States' strikes on the nuclear sites in Iran is a major diplomatic setback for Pakistan. The country, which had recommended US President Donald Trump's name for the 2026 Nobel Peace prize on June 21, condemned the strikes on Tehran on June 22. 'Pakistan condemns the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities which follow the series of attacks by Israel. We are gravely concerned at the possible further escalation of tensions in the region," said Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar in an official statement. — Ishaq Dar (@MIshaqDar50) June 22, 2025 WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 21? Pakistan lauded Trump for his role in negotiating the May 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire, a move they believed demonstrated his commitment to peace. India has maintained that the US had no role in putting Operation Sindoor on halt and that the ceasefire was agreed upon based on Pakistan's request. Pakistan's Army Chief Asim Munir's White House meeting with Trump on June 18 also signalled closer ties. 'Pakistan's nomination of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize was not just a symbolic gesture. It was a strategic effort to secure the U.S. support on key issues such as the Kashmir conflict and economic cooperation in emerging sectors like cryptocurrency and critical minerals," said intelligence sources. Analysts said Pakistan was also attempting to appeal to Trump's ego in the hope of dissuading him from taking aggressive action against Iran, thus maintaining regional stability and gaining leverage in their ongoing diplomatic efforts. WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 22? The U.S. strikes on June 22 have put Pakistan in a precarious position. The country, which shares a 900-km border with Iran, relies heavily on Tehran for trade, security, and the stability of its Shia community, which constitutes 15-20% of its population. The escalation threatens to destabilise Balochistan, a region already plagued by separatist movements, and could potentially embolden Sunni jihadist groups like Jaish al-Adl. While Tehran has refrained from publicly criticising Pakistan, the trust between the two neighbours is undoubtedly strained. Indian intelligence sources said Pakistan's diplomatic manoeuvre with the Nobel nomination was fraught with risks, given its significant dependence on Iran. The fallout from the U.S. strikes underscores Islamabad's limited influence in the broader U.S.-Iran conflict and highlights the fragility of its multi-alignment strategy. 'Moving forward, Pakistan faces the daunting task of balancing its relationships with both Tehran and Washington. This requires deft diplomacy to navigate an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, a challenge that appears near-impossible amid the current crises," said sources.