The illusion of decapitation: Why killing Iran’s leaders strengthens the regime

The war has entered its fourth week since the US-Israel military strikes against Iran on 28 February. While Iran, forced into the conflict, has suffered the most severe attacks and destruction, Israel has not been spared. Cities including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and even the nuclear city of Dimona have been hit by Iranian missile attacks. Furthermore, Iran has attacked US military bases in the Middle East. Of particular concern is the fact that both sides have also attacked civilian and energy facilities belonging to each other and third parties. To date, the war shows no signs of abating.

The US and Israel clearly underestimated Iran’s ability to resist and counterattack, while significantly overestimating the likelihood of a popular uprising within Iran. As Iranian officials, one after another, courageously face death and steadfastly take on leadership roles, vowing to retaliate against the US and Israeli military strikes, many Iranians have, at least for now, altered their perceptions of the Islamic Republic. Defending the homeland has become an increasingly urgent aspiration for a growing number of Iranians.

Moreover, the US and Israel are too obsessed with “decapitation strikes” against high-ranking officials of adversaries, believing that killing a group of senior leaders would immediately plunge Iranian politics into chaos. Such a perception is as absurd as believing that the Iranian people would cooperate with the US and Israel in military strikes against their own country.

Furthermore, for years, Iran has implemented a “resistance economy” strategy centred on import substitution, which has kept the daily lives of Iranians largely normal so far. Meanwhile, the longstanding efforts to develop missiles, drones and other capabilities, as demonstrated in the ongoing war, have endowed Iran with considerable capacity to conduct external strikes.

The war has now reached a stalemate. The US is actively seeking a suitable opportunity to declare victory and withdraw. Iran is demonstrating enhanced strike capabilities to gain more bargaining power for future negotiations with the US. Israel continues to pursue the goal of overthrowing Iran’s current regime.

Moving forward, whether President Trump can restrain the Netanyahu administration’s unrealistic pursuit of its war goals with Iran will ultimately be the deciding factor in the war’s trajectory. Despite suffering severe war damage, Iran is unlikely to emerge as the defeated party, and the conflict is not expected to descend into a prolonged quagmire.

The war, deliberately initiated by the US and Israel, has had a wide-ranging impact at both regional and international levels. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries hosting US military bases have borne the brunt of the consequences. Even before the outbreak of the war, Iran had explicitly stated that it would target US military bases in the Middle East. As Iranian civilian and energy facilities were attacked, Iran expanded its attacks on GCC countries, including energy facilities. The disruption of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz has, of course, dealt a heavy blow to GCC countries that heavily rely on this waterway for oil exports.

Over the past few decades, GCC countries, represented by the UAE, have shown a thriving development trend. Dubai, in particular, has been favoured by international capital. However, this war has fully exposed the serious deficiencies in the GCC countries’ ability to cope with risks and the fragility of investment security. This will inevitably lead to a reassessment of the region’s value by international capital, which is likely to withdraw from the area. My exchanges with friends in the Chinese investment community since the outbreak of the war have confirmed this point.

Although the US maintains military bases in the region, after this war, these Arab nations should understand that these bases are not meant to protect them. The repeated attacks on GCC countries in recent days have fully demonstrated this. It is also important to note that Iran’s targeting of GCC nations is not without justification. If you lend a gun to someone to kill, you will be held legally responsible. The same applies to turning your own country into a base for launching military strikes.

If, after this war, the GCC countries continue to view Iran as their primary threat, it would suggest that such a mindset risks perpetuating the very suffering they have already endured. In a region shaped by the rivalries among the Arab states, Israel and Iran, any alignment of two against the third is unlikely to deliver lasting stability or peace. Sustained hostility tends to breed only more of the same. Without genuine compromise among the region’s nations, the Middle East is likely to remain caught in recurring cycles of conflict.

President Trump’s unnecessary war against Iran, which violates international law, has further tarnished the US’s international image. The fact that the war has not proceeded as envisioned by Washington policymakers, along with the war-related challenges faced by the Trump administration, is also inconsistent with the vision of “Make America Great Again”.

The US did not even inform NATO countries and allies like Japan before the war broke out. As a result, when the US faced difficulties in the war and sought help from its allies, it was turned down. America’s allies not only felt neglected but were also angered by the resulting oil and gas crises. The ongoing war has laid bare the challenges facing transatlantic relations.

Russia has arguably been the biggest beneficiary of the Iran war so far. Skyrocketing oil prices have brought substantial gains to Russia, and the shift in international focus to the Middle East has partially alleviated the pressure on Russia regarding the war in Ukraine. Given its close security and political ties with Iran, Russia will undoubtedly reap its own rewards from the Iranian crisis, especially since Iran is unlikely to be defeated by the US and Israel.

With the US launching military strikes against Iran, two out of the world’s three leading powers are now at war. From the perspective of great power competition, China, focused on its own development, finds itself in an international environment that is at least not unfavourable. Moreover, the possible continued export of Iranian oil to China, coupled with the country’s long-standing emphasis on new energy sources, has prevented an energy crisis, such as an oil shortage, from arising in China.

It is likely that, after the war, the Middle Eastern countries — particularly those in the GCC — will further deepen their cooperation with China. To some extent, the region’s shift toward China since the start of the new millennium has been shaped by US policies and actions. If Beijing’s own policies remain sound, then China’s future is indeed promising.

Related: War in Iran could rewire China’s global role | How the Iran war is stretching America thin against China