Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini on June 4, 1989, is far from an ordinary figure in the balance of power and hierarchical structure. Therefore, Israeli threats to assassinate him carry extremely serious consequences for the security of the entire Middle East, especially in the wake of the US military operation that targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, causing widespread destruction.

Subsequently, Iran launched several ballistic missiles that struck targets inside Israel, which were followed by an announcement from the Iranian Shoura Council approving the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, pending the approval of the Supreme National Security Council. If carried out, this step will take the conflict into a more complex escalation — one that could involve attacks on or disruption of oil tankers, directly affecting global energy prices and supply chains.

These rapidly unfolding developments may push Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu toward greater “euphoria” and an inflated sense of power, thus prompting a military operation that leads to the assassination of Khamenei, especially since the Israeli leader previously succeeded in targeting Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, his successor Hashem Safieddine, and the party’s most prominent military leaders, in addition to the assassination of senior Hamas leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar.

In the Israeli target bank, many of which have been achieved, Netanyahu fails to take into account that Iran’s supreme leader cannot be equated with Nasrallah, who was killed last year. The difference in symbolic weight is enormous, and the consequences of a miscalculation are grave, as Abdulrahman Al-Rashed wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper on June 20. Al-Rashed described the idea of “targeting the leader as madness,” considering that “this issue is far more serious than just another military objective: It could become a matter of ideology and trigger deeply dangerous cycles of revenge.”

Al-Rashed, one of the most prominent Arab writers and a political critic of Iranian policies in the Middle East, sought in his approach to the topic to provide a long-term, realistic political perspective. He considered that the assassination of Khamenei would cause “wounds that may never heal — regardless of how decisive the Israeli or American victories are on the battlefield.”

In this context, a prominent figure such as Ali Al-Sistani, the supreme religious authority of Shiite Muslims, issued a statement, his second since the start of the Israeli war on Iran, warning against “any threat to target its supreme religious and political leadership.” He considered that “any criminal measure of such kind, in addition to violating clear religious and moral standards and constituting a blatant violation of international laws and norms, will have dire consequences for the region as a whole,” potentially “spiraling out of control and leading to widespread chaos.”

Although Al-Sistani is a classical religious leader who often prefers to refrain from political involvement, this statement indicates his deep concern, prompting him to warn against further escalation in the Middle East.

Khamenei is not seen merely as the leader of the revolution in Iran; he is also a religious authority for millions of Shiite Muslims worldwide. In terms of the number of believers who adhere to his jurisprudential rulings, he likely ranks second or third after Al-Sistani, who is regarded as the highest-ranking Shiite religious figure in the world.

From this perspective, Khamenei’s assassination would give a greater ideological dimension to a conflict that already contains religious elements. This would unleash more rhetoric of extremism, hatred, and hostility between Muslims and Jews at a time when efforts should focus on interfaith dialogue and coexistence among religions and their adherents rather than fueling conflict between them.

Even politically, Khamenei remains the only leader capable of making a bold strategic decision in the Islamic Republic, one that would be binding for everyone, hard-liners and moderates, if Iran decides to sign any future agreement with the US that could end the current crisis.