In an unprecedented military and political development, a widely circulated video documented the moment the Israeli army destroyed the Assembly of Experts building in the holy city of Qom (south of the Iranian capital, Tehran). This violent airstrike came at a highly sensitive time, as the building was hosting a crucial meeting to choose a new Supreme Leader for the Islamic Republic, thus giving this attack serious strategic implications.

Details of the attack and expansion of the circle of fire

Footage showed a massive explosion that leveled the building, indicating the use of highly destructive bombs. The Israeli attack was not limited to Qom; the Israeli military intensified its strikes to include decision-making centers in the capital, Tehran, officially announcing the targeting of the Iranian presidential palace and the Supreme National Security Council building, a clear indication that the confrontation had escalated to a stage of directly targeting symbols of sovereignty and the regime.

What is a Leadership Experts Council?

To understand the gravity of this event, one must consider the paramount importance of the targeted building. The Assembly of Experts is one of the most important pillars of Iran's political and religious system. It comprises 88 members, all senior clerics and religious scholars, elected by direct popular vote for eight-year terms. The Assembly's primary constitutional function is to appoint the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, oversee his performance, and even remove him if he loses the qualifications for leadership. Therefore, targeting the Assembly while it was in session to choose a successor to the Supreme Leader was an attempt to undermine the mechanism of power transfer at the highest levels of the Iranian regime.

Implications of targeting the city of Qom

The airstrikes on Qom carry profound symbolic significance that transcends mere material damage. Qom is considered the religious capital of Iran and a stronghold of the seminaries that have produced the regime's top leaders. Bringing the battle to the heart of this city and targeting the institution responsible for safeguarding the rule of the Supreme Leader signifies a radical shift in Israel's target bank, which has historically focused on nuclear facilities or Revolutionary Guard military bases.

Regional and international repercussions

This escalation places the entire region on the brink of a volcano, as this attack is expected to have far-reaching repercussions for regional security. Targeting sovereign institutions of this magnitude could push Tehran toward unconventional responses, increasing the risk of the Middle East sliding into an open and comprehensive confrontation that transcends the rules of engagement that have prevailed for many years.

Iran is entering the most dangerous political and security juncture in its history, at a critical moment where an internal leadership crisis intertwines with multiple regional conflicts. The situation is rapidly escalating, and the world is watching closely to see what unfolds in Tehran. The country appears to be operating with a fragmented structure lacking a clear center of power, foreshadowing serious geopolitical repercussions.

Succession crisis and constitutional ambiguity

Following reports of the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the regime has yet to announce a formal successor, despite the passage of sufficient time that should have allowed for a resolution through established constitutional mechanisms. Historically, the Iranian regime relies on the Assembly of Experts to select the Supreme Leader, the body constitutionally empowered to appoint or dismiss him. However, the current complexities point to a deep power struggle within the corridors of power, a stark contrast to the smooth transition that occurred in 1989 after Khomeini's death and Khamenei's ascension to the throne.

Lack of centralization and its impact on the system

While it is true that a temporary council was formed to manage certain tasks, and several names were floated behind closed doors, the public absence of a clear leader reflects a confusion that goes beyond mere protocol to the very core of the power structure. Iran is not a state of traditional institutions; rather, it is a system fundamentally based on the central authority of the "Supreme Leader," who controls the levers of power within the Revolutionary Guard, the army, and the judiciary. The absence of this figurehead creates a vacuum that temporary councils cannot fill, thus opening the door for the Revolutionary Guard to consolidate its political influence to an unprecedented degree.

The regional arms are floundering and the risks of escalation

Regionally, the picture is even more complex. The Iranian-backed armed factions in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria (the so-called "axis of resistance") rely on strategic guidance and direct funding from Tehran. In the absence of a central command structure, these proxies have begun to operate without a central authority, increasing the likelihood of military miscalculations or being drawn into ill-conceived confrontations with Israel or the United States. The lack of a coordinating force to guide these fronts could transform the region into a scene of complete chaos, where each faction acts according to its own narrow, local interests, detached from a unified Iranian strategy.

In an unprecedented escalation of the military and political situation, US President Donald Trump announced his categorical rejection of any attempts at negotiation from the Iranian side at the present time, stressing that these calls came too late after Tehran lost the pillars of its strategic military power.

In a fiery statement posted on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump asserted that the Iranian regime is now attempting to salvage its lifeline through diplomacy, but that it is too late. He wrote bluntly: "The Iranians have lost their air defenses, their air force, their navy, and their leaders... and then they wanted to negotiate. I said: It's too late." These remarks come as the United States, in close coordination with Israel, continues its intensive military operations, which appear to have achieved broad strategic objectives.

Context of the conflict and historical background

This dramatic development cannot be separated from a long history of tension between Washington and Tehran. Relations between the two countries have long been governed by the “maximum pressure” policy previously pursued by Trump, which focused on crippling the Iranian economy and isolating it diplomatically. Analysts suggest that the current strikes are the culmination of a long history of disputes over regional influence, the ballistic missile program, and the thorny issue of the nuclear program.

President Trump, who authorized the airstrikes in direct coordination with Israel on Saturday, had initially estimated the operations would last four to five weeks. However, developments on the ground and the administration's efforts to justify a full-scale war have shifted the focus toward an open-ended confrontation aimed at completely neutralizing the Iranian threat.

Military and nuclear dimensions

In justifying the massive attack, Trump focused on Iran's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons, an accusation Tehran has consistently denied, maintaining that its program is peaceful. Nevertheless, Washington and Tel Aviv consider Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb a red line that cannot be crossed, which explains the ferocity of the attacks targeting military infrastructure.

Trump's talk of destroying Iran's navy and air defenses carries serious strategic implications. Iran relies heavily on its naval power in the Strait of Hormuz to threaten to close global oil shipping lanes, and on its air defenses to protect its nuclear facilities. According to Trump's statements, neutralizing these capabilities would deprive Iran of its most important bargaining chips, making its calls for negotiations now appear as an attempt at surrender rather than an attempt at equal dialogue.

Expected regional repercussions

This escalation is expected to cast a long shadow over the entire Middle East. The absence of Iranian defensive capabilities could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region and reshape security and political alliances. Furthermore, a protracted war could lead to instability in global energy markets, presenting the international community with complex economic and security challenges in the coming period.