TEHRAN – Tehran Times spoke exclusively with Dr. Dost Muhammad Barrech, a Pakistani expert in security and regional politics at the University of Balochistan in Quetta, on the ongoing U.S.–Israeli aggression against Iran and its wider implications. Dr. Barrech argues that the assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei and the broader “decapitation strategy” are unlikely to weaken Iran, but may instead reinforce national cohesion and institutional resilience.

He further examines the war’s spillover effects on Pakistan, rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, and the perceived bias within the United Nations Security Council, while assessing the potential for a reshaped regional security architecture.

Below is the full text of the interview: 

The killing of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the February 28 strikes and the subsequent leadership transition in Iran have raised questions about the effectiveness of “decapitation strategies.” Historically, do such operations succeed in destabilizing states, or do they often strengthen national cohesion and resistance?

In my view, decapitation strategy does not always produce meaningful long-term solution. Rather the new strongmen replace the old ones. When Israel targeted Hamas leaders it has failed to change the group's direction. Iran has a strong system which has the capacity to survive leaders. Iran cannot be compared with Iraq and Libya, It has a decentralized system and not centered to one signal individual. Iran has overlapping institutions like IRGC, Supreme National Security Council and Guardian Council making command structure intact empowering quick interim leadership. Though, the US and Israel assassinated Ali Khamenei, the broader institutional system in shape of IRGC still survives which will produce the system 2.0 further bolstering IRGC supremacy. Iran learnt a lesson from Iraq and Libya anticipated the decapitation and was prepared for leadership removal. Tehran possesses multi-nodal system with layers of statesmen and bureaucracy managing state’s affairs even without the supreme leader. Arguably, the US decapitation strategy is believed to have radicalized the Iranians and the country for its survival will become more aggressive having severe implications for the regional politics.      

Pakistan shares a long and sensitive border with Iran in Balochistan. From Islamabad’s strategic perspective, how could instability in Iran affect the security dynamics along the Iran-Pakistan border, particularly regarding militant groups and separatist movements?

Pakistan shares 900 km with Iran, the ongoing war will have spillover effects for country. Sistan-Baluchestan an areas wise is 16 percent of Iran a turmoil in Sistan-Baluchestan will affect Balochistan. Amid the war, if Iran's government weakens in Sistan-Baluchestan, the Baloch ethno-separatist groups is likely to fill that vacuum. Such scenario might divert Pakistani security resources to border management. Militants always become emboldened in war time situation. Pakistan is already engaged in skirmishes with Afghanistan due to TTP factor.  The continuation of war in Iran has also surged economic disruption. In such delicate situation, any kind of cross border cooperation among BLA, BLF and Kurdish PJAK needs to be carefully monitored by Islamabad and Tehran. The turmoil situation might also embolden IS, TTP and Al-Qaeda to carry out their activities creating internal security challenge. The economic and political hardships for Balochistan encompassing disrupted trade and fuel crises particularly in Southwest Balochistan which depends 80 percent on Iranian items will augment local grievances that militants might exploit creating security challenge for Pakistan.

Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz have escalated dramatically, with shipping disruptions affecting a significant share of global oil trade. Do you think the current confrontation could transform the Strait of Hormuz into a long-term strategic pressure point in global energy politics?

As the saying goes ‘whoever controls energy controls the destiny”. In this context, Iran is using Strait of Hormuz as an asymmetric long game strategy turning its geography into a global economic weapons to thwart US-Israeli military ascendency.

Mojtaba Khamenei sees the Strait of Hurmuz via selective tanker attacks, mines as a sustainable leverage to paralyze the global economy, enfeebling the US political will, forcing it to accept a ceasefire on better terms. The prolong disruption seems to be hardening the headliner resolve, bolstering domestic nationalism.

As stated by Mojtaba Khamenei “the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must definitely continue to be used” because the channel is “an area where the enemy is highly vulnerable.” In this regard, the Trump administration frustration can be gauged when he asked NATO members, China, Japan, and others to send warships to preserve the Strait of Hormuz. Interestingly, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have rejected Trump’s proposal for coalition force in the Strait of Hormuz 

On March 11, the United Nations Security Council adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 2817 condemning Iran’s attacks on Persian Gulf States, yet the resolution did not address the earlier U.S.–Israeli strikes that triggered the crisis. In your view, does this reflect political bias within the international system, and what consequences might this have for the credibility of the United Nations?

I think each great power makes world system according to its whim to serve its national interest. The United Nations Security Council Resolution will definitely favors the US and Israel interest in the Middle East. Remember, since 1972, the US has used its veto power over 45 times to block UNSC resolutions critical of Israel. It shows the US political bias within the international system.  Arguably, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2817 ignores root causes of the war and appears to be fueling further Iranian nationalism, entrenching the war as a prolonged contest of attrition rather than quick resolution. The United Nation has lost its credibility when the Trump administration initiated the Board of Peace. The US is containing China and does not allow Chinese influence in Western Hemisphere as it will challenge the American regional hegemony. But it supports Israel to become a regional power in the Middle East. The great power does not allow regional powers in international politics as it will challenge its hegemony. The US must remember, if Israel becomes a regional power in the Middle East it will certainly challenge the US supremacy. The US should get into introspection and ponder over appeasing Israel. Appeasement makes aggressor more aggressive.

Finally, do you believe the current war could reshape the security architecture of the Middle East, potentially leading to new alliances or geopolitical blocs?

I guess, if the present government survives the current leader Mojtaba Khamenei who seems to be more hardline than his predecessor will try to obtain nuclear nukes.

Ali Khamenei had issued personal fatwa banned nuclear nukes. Now religious constraint has been removed after his assassination. Iran so far has 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent. In prevailing war, the US-Israel attacks weakened Iran‘s conventional power. Nuclear weapons might restore its deterrence capability. If wounded Iran becomes a nuclear state, it would reshape the security architecture of the Middle East and forcing the Persian Gulf members to redesign their security architecture. Iran in ongoing war is applying horizontal strategy targeting the US bases in Persian Gulf States exerting more pressure on the US allies.

Tehran might further strengthen its asymmetric warfare in the region. Under such circumstances, the US bases turn out to be liability for the Persian Gulf members damaging the US credibility as a security provider. The Iran conventional and asymmetric warfare are real challenge for the US and its allies in the region. They will definitely come with security architecture. 
I think, the region has already witnessed a security pact called Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) inked between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia last year in September after Israel attack on Qatar a (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council ((P)GCC). Presently, Turkey is also taking a keen interest in SMDA. The region after current war is extremely likely to witness new alliances in Middle Eastern politics.