Who Really Rules Iran?

The Finnish Broadcasting company Yle has closely followed the funeral of Iran’s dictator, Ali Khamenei. At the same time, it has reported that the new Ayatollah, Mojtaba Khamenei, did not appear at the funeral and has not been seen in public even once.

Messages purportedly issued by Khamenei have, however, been read out in Iran before. In addition, the United States and Israel are said to possess intelligence suggesting that Mojtaba is still alive.

That may, of course, be true—or it may not. What is clear, however, is that a head of state hiding like a rat cannot truly be the one exercising power—not even in Iran. If he remains in hiding, someone else must be wielding authority in his place: someone who does not want their own name mentioned publicly and instead issues orders in Mojtaba’s name.

If, on the other hand, Mojtaba has in fact died, it would be entirely understandable that the real holder of power would not want their own name splashed across the headlines. It would instead be far more advantageous for them to claim that Mojtaba is alive and governing the country from a secret bunker, much like Adolf Hitler was said to be doing in 1945.

* * *

I readily admit that what I have written above contains elements of a conspiracy theory. Time will tell whether Mojtaba returns as Iran’s visible religious leader and head of state once peace finally returns.

For my part, to borrow the late ski jumper Matti Nykänen’s famous expression, I would put the odds at no better than “fifty-sixty.”

Before that, it remains to be seen whether Donald Trump can ultimately disengage from Iran without being seen as having suffered a humiliating defeat.

At the moment, however, it appears that Iran has no intention of giving up either its enriched uranium or its Islamist system of government. Even restoring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz seems unlikely.

* * *

Since I began with a conspiracy theory, it is perhaps only fitting to end with a dose of hindsight.

Trump and the United States would not be in their current predicament if the U.S. military had continued its extraordinarily successful offensive against Iran in the summer of 2025.

Trump, however, chose not to let it do so. Instead, he halted the offensive, giving Iran time to recover and learn from the experience—which it did. The result was a significant improvement in Iran’s military capabilities and the stalemate now taking shape, in which the Americans can hope, at best, to restore the situation that existed before the offensive began—and perhaps not even that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony
Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?

As my esteemed readers know, yesterday the United States and Israel struck Iran, killing a large number of the country’s leaders, beginning with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran, for its part, has launched its own missiles at least toward the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Syria, Iraq and Bahrain, as well as, of course, Israel. In addition, it has closed the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranians have reacted to the events—at least according to Iranians living in Finland—by celebrating in the streets. Women symbolically with their hair uncovered, and at least some shouting the name of Reza Pahlavi, the current head of the country’s former monarchical dynasty.

On the other hand, social media also contains video material of demonstrations supporting the Iranian government. Based on what I have seen, the crowds at these demonstrations appear to be quite large.

* * *

It remains to be seen, then, how the situation in Iran will develop from here. In this respect, the absolutely central factor is the Iranian army: will it remain loyal to the Islamist regime, or will it shift to the side of those demanding change? Or, as I could well imagine, will it split into two camps that begin to wage a civil war against each other?

In any case, it is clear that neither the United States nor Israel will send their ground forces into Iran. For that reason, the country’s future is still entirely open, and it would not be surprising if it were to continue its existence in a medieval atmosphere in the future as well.

This alternative becomes more likely the longer the people demanding liberation remain without military force—that is, the longer the country’s leadership is given time to recover from its losses.

* * *

In order to clarify the situation, I asked the Gemini AI for the very latest information. It replied that “there have been reports that parts of Iran’s regular army and local security forces have refused to follow orders or have even joined the side of the protesters. Wikipedia sources and news agencies now mention ‘armed civilians’ and ‘police and military defectors’ as part of the ongoing unrest.”

In addition, according to Gemini, “there have been reports of local clashes in the regions of Kurdistan and Baluchistan. In particular, Kurdish groups (such as PJAK and PDKI) have moved from a state of readiness to actively taking up positions in their own areas.” It also stated that “there have been reports within the country of arson attacks and assaults against symbols of the regime as well as local offices of the IRGC.”

I interpret this to mean that it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about Iran’s future. In any case, however, Iranians now have an opportunity to replace their Islamist theocracy with a more civilized form of government—but the window of time for doing so may not be very long.

* * *

Finally, one observation about the possible effects of a change of power on Finnish society. It may well happen that refugees set out from the country toward Europe.

In this sense, it should be understood that these people would not be ordinary Iranians, as such people would rather return to their homeland if conditions there were to normalize. Instead, those who may set out could be Islamists who have served and/or supported the country’s tyrannical regime.

For this reason, Finland should already now state very clearly that it will not grant asylum to potential Iranian refugees in the event of a change of government, but rather that Iran will be regarded as a safe country for all its citizens—and that this assessment will not be altered by possible reports of representatives of the Islamist regime being held accountable for crimes committed over the course of half a century.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UN Congratulates an Executioner – Credibility in Free Fall
What’s Next, Iran?
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Vaihtuuko Iranissa valta?