TEHRAN – The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not just the killing of a political leader but part of a broader effort to weaken Iran’s ideological system, disrupt a long-standing revolutionary movement, and remove what many in the West policymaking circles viewed as a central obstacle to influence in West Asia.

In other words, the enemy’s “revenge” was at its core intending to create a vacuum not just of power, but of direction.

On February 28, just hours after the war started, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the Iranian Leader had been killed. His voice suggested confidence, even triumph. Likely at that moment, Trump believed he had secured a decisive victory, one that the Islamic Republic would be unable to function in its existing form.

Such an assumption advocates the doctrine of the effectiveness for “decapitation strikes,” for which both Trump and Netanyahu had already calculated by the help of intelligence briefings that the Leader and his key lieutenants would meet at his compound in downtown Tehran. 

The incorrect calculation was also shaped by another pattern: Venezuela, which revealed Trump’s broader ambition to even engineer a compliant successor.

Prior to the war, some analysts had already cautioned that the U.S. influence over South American neighbor will be hard to replicate in country with deep and long-standing antipathy to the West. In those days questions were raised about who could serve as “Iran’s Delcy,” referencing Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed leadership responsibilities in Venezuela under extraordinary circumstances.

Despite these advices, Trump signaled his inner intention to shape Iran’s political future, saying that he needs to be personally involved in selecting the next leader, just as he was in Venezuela. 

Prior to an official announcement by the Iranian government, Trump acknowledged that Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the assassinated leader, was the most likely successor, but rejected this outcome. “Khamenei's son is unacceptable to me. We want someone that will bring harmony and peace to Iran,” Trump said. 

He further warned that any continuation of Khamenei’s policies would inevitably lead to renewed conflict, stating that such a scenario would force the United States back to war “in five years.”

His remarks amount to an inherent recognition that the core objective, which was transforming Iran’s political direction, was already slipping out of reach. 

Trump exactly knew that the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei would be a failure for his administration. 

It was on March 8 that days of speculations ended up when Iran officially named Mojtaba as the new Leader. 

The announcement was followed by Trump’s extreme reaction that further highlighted  gap between expectation and outcome. He openly criticized the decision, stating, “I think they made a big mistake.” 

“I don’t know if it’s going to last. I think they made a mistake,” and repeated his dissatisfaction: “Not going to tell you. I’m not happy with him.” His comments reflect not confidence, but frustration.

Some analysts say the appointment was firm signal for the enemies to remind institutional continuity and political resilience, adding the new leader was seen as “the same as the previous one, just younger.”

Even external observers recognized this continuity. A CNN analyst suggested that Trump’s operation had been “successful,” but only in the narrowest sense, replacing an older leader with a younger version. The remark, though controversial, underscored a deeper reality: the system itself remained intact.

But for Trump, the new leader equals an unchanged game. His showed fierce by saying that the new leader might face the same fate as his predecessor. 

His altering comments on Iran’s Leader seems to have no end. “We don’t know’ if Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is alive. Nobody knows what happened to him,” he said.

By saying “I don’t consider him really the leader, but they do have some leaders left,” Trump implicitly admitted that the system has not been decapitated in any meaningful sense!

Ayatollah Khamenei was widely perceived, even by his adversaries, as a leader who never bowed to global imperialism, particularly under the pressure of the current U.S. President and his predecessors.

Now, after 25 days of round-the-clock brutal attacks and assignations of top officials and military commanders, Iran’s leadership structure still remains functional with its ideological direction unchanged. The result is a situation in which the very act of “revenge” has underscored the limits of external power in reshaping deeply rooted political orders.

AM