Who Was Behind the Assassination of Ali Larijani?

Mar 19, 2026

Share this article:

Power Vacuum Emerges After Iran’s Top Security Official Is Assassinated

The assassination of Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, in an Israeli strike has exposed a significant security lapse in Tehran, raising concerns that tensions in the Middle East could escalate further.

Iran confirmed on March 17 that Larijani—one of the country’s central security coordinators—was killed in an attack in Tehran earlier that day.

The strike inevitably draws comparisons to the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani, the powerful commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Soleimani’s death not only removed a prominent military leader but also risked weakening Iran’s operational capabilities, leaving a void no successor has fully filled.

Larijani’s role carried similar weight. A deeply influential figure within Iran’s political system, his death creates not only a power vacuum but also new challenges for Tehran’s ability to coordinate policy across competing institutions.

At 67, Larijani was one of the most seasoned and influential politicians in Iran for decades. His career began during the Iran-Iraq War, where he rose through the ranks of the IRGC to brigadier general. He later held several key positions, including Speaker of Parliament from 2008 to 2020 and previously Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

He played a pivotal role in bridging multiple centers of power—from civilian institutions to military and security bodies—while advocating a more confrontational stance toward the United States and Israel. He was also central to shaping IRGC military operations.

Larijani’s influence stemmed from his ability to navigate rival factions within Iran’s elite, maintaining ties with the IRGC while preserving a degree of independence from hardline groups. This positioned him as a critical intermediary, helping sustain internal balance within the political system.

As a former parliamentary speaker, nuclear negotiator, and member of a powerful clerical family, Larijani commanded respect across Iran’s clerical establishment, the IRGC, and the state apparatus. That made him particularly valuable during periods of crisis, when unity can be as crucial as ideology.

In recent months, Larijani had also been involved in efforts to delay the transition of power tied to a potential new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. Some analysts argue that postponing such a decision could give Iran greater strategic flexibility in a post-conflict environment while avoiding constraints on future options.

Ali Larijani, along with his son Morteza and a close bodyguard, Gen. Vahid Fateminejad, were killed in a pre-dawn airstrike on March 17 (Photo: Iran Intl).

Beyond domestic politics, Larijani wielded considerable influence over Iran’s international relationships, particularly with partners such as China and Russia, helping shape the country’s foreign policy for years. He also played a key role in advancing the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers, including the United States.

In August 2025, he was reappointed as Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, marking a notable political comeback after a period of relative marginalization. Within Iran’s layered power structure, the council serves as a crucial link between the military and civilian leadership, while also shaping key security and strategic policies.

For years, Larijani had been considered a high-priority target in U.S. and Israeli strategies aimed at weakening Iran’s leadership.

For Israel, targeting Larijani signals a broader objective: dismantling Iran’s governing structure, not merely degrading its military capabilities—even as the United States appears more focused on the latter.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in identifying a potential intermediary or transitional leader in Iran, drawing comparisons to Venezuela’s interim leadership model under Delcy Rodríguez.

However, Larijani’s assassination significantly reduces the likelihood that such a figure could emerge in the near term.

Experts say the killing is not only a blow to Iran’s leadership but also a source of growing internal instability. With several influential figures sidelined or no longer active in politics, the loss of a consensus-builder like Larijani could complicate decision-making at the highest levels.

The incident may also affect public sentiment, potentially undermining confidence in the government’s ability to ensure the security of senior leadership as the conflict continues to intensify.

May You Like

Russian weapons enter the battlefield. U.S. aircraft shot down

Mar 17, 2026•Hot

Iran Launches 60th Wave, Israel Intensifies Strikes on Hezbollah; Trump ‘Shocked’ by NATO, Says U.S. Doesn’t Need Its Support

Mar 20, 2026•Hot

Iran Military Taunts Donald Trump: “War Isn’t Won on Social Media”

Mar 17, 2026•Hot

U.S.-NATO Rift Over Strait of Hormuz Raises Questions About Alliance’s Future

U.S.-NATO Rift Over Strait of Hormuz Raises Questions About Alliance’s Future Under mounting pressure from the United States and President Donald Trump, NATO allies are facing a critical question: whether to commit forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz—or risk deepening fractures within the alliance. Tensions between Washington and its partners in NATO have intensified amid U.S. calls for support in safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz, as conflict in the Middle East escalates. Roots of the Dispute U.S. President Donald Trump (right) and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (Photo: NATO). Iran’s targeting of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz—a vital corridor that carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply—has driven up energy prices, putting pressure on both the U.S. and global economies. In an initial appeal on March 14, Trump urged countries including China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom to deploy naval assets to help secure the waterway, according to CNN. A day later, he escalated his rhetoric, warning that NATO could face “a very bad future” if allies fail to assist in reopening the strait. “It is entirely reasonable that countries benefiting from this passage contribute to ensuring nothing bad happens there,” Trump told the Financial Times, adding that a lack of support “would be very bad for NATO’s future.” Allies Push Back European leaders have largely rejected Trump’s call for NATO involvement. A spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the conflict “has nothing to do with NATO,” emphasizing that the alliance is designed for territorial defense and lacks a legal basis for such a deployment. The United Kingdom echoed that stance. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said plainly: “This is not, and has never been considered, a NATO mission.” Starmer stressed that Britain would “not be drawn into a wider war,” though he noted ongoing discussions with the U.S. and regional partners about the potential use of mine-clearing drones already deployed in the area. Other allies have taken similar positions. Greece and Italy have ruled out participation, while Lithuania and Estonia have called for further clarification. Following the muted response, Trump said on March 17 that he was not surprised and accused NATO allies of making a “serious mistake.” “We no longer need, nor do we want, NATO’s assistance. In fact, we never did,” he wrote on Truth Social, adding that the U.S. does not require help from allies such as Japan, Australia, or South Korea. What Comes Next? The Strait of Hormuz (Photo: SANA). European economies are already feeling the strain of disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said gas prices have risen 50% and oil prices 27% since the conflict began. In just 10 days, European consumers have spent an additional €3 billion ($3.44 billion), she said. Despite economic and political pressure, analysts say NATO is unlikely to deploy forces to the region anytime soon. Charles Hecker of the Royal United Services Institute told Deutsche Welle that European nations are reluctant to commit troops due to the risk of becoming targets. Trump has specifically called on France and the U.K. to participate, but Hecker said both are unlikely to engage while active hostilities continue. “They are not ready to join U.S. military operations in the Strait of Hormuz and likely won’t be in the near term,” he said. Scott Anderson of the Brookings Institution described the situation as a “high-risk quagmire,” with concerns extending to potential domestic security threats. According to Anderson, European involvement may only come after active combat subsides, possibly in the form of maritime security or mine-clearing operations. Questions also remain about Washington’s next move, including whether the Trump administration could consider withdrawing from NATO. Analysts cited by Barron's say that scenario is unlikely. For now, NATO appears to be seeking a balance—easing tensions with Washington while avoiding immediate deployment. On March 18, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said allies are consulting on the best course of action. “From what I understand, allies are working together and discussing how to proceed and what the best solution is,” Rutte said. Another Vessel Ablaze in the Strait Separately, satellite imagery showed thick smoke rising from the Malta-flagged container ship Safeen Prestige as it drifted in the Strait of Hormuz, CNN reported on March 19. A container ship ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz on March 18 (Photo: European Space Agency). Images from the European Space Agency showed the vessel about 4.5 nautical miles northeast of Ra’s Makhbūq, Oman. The ship was reportedly struck by an “unidentified object” on March 4, causing a fire in its engine room, according to the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations agency. All crew members were safely evacuated. A warning issued by Pakistan National Hydrographic Office on March 18 said the vessel remained on fire.