Listen to the article
Despite various accounts surrounding the crash of the Iranian helicopter carrying President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, the incident brought the issue of succession in Iran to the forefront, pertaining to both the Supreme Guide and the presidency. While the issue of “succession” may not have been the cause of the crash, the incident opened the door to potential changes and raised serious points about Iran’s future.
Numerous questions emerged immediately after the announcement of the crash. Yet, answers remain elusive due to the lack of needed and clear information that could expose the truth. As such, this latest accident can become a closely guarded state secret, much like the case of other countries that have lost leaders, including Lebanon, where the truth continues to be shrouded in mysteries.
The most pressing questions revolve around the lack of reactivity of the two back-up helicopters. What did they do when the presidential helicopter went missing? Were all three helicopters flying in tandem? Why was Raisi’s helicopter the only one involved in the incident? Why did the two helicopters fail to monitor the president’s helicopter, especially since they were flying simultaneously? Why did the Iranian president’s helicopter deviate from its course, given that the two back-up helicopters were meant to closely follow Raisi’s? Furthermore, what lies behind the decision-making team’s insistence on using a helicopter for the return trip when the delegation had initially arrived in Azerbaijan by plane? Also, why wasn’t the same mode of transportation used for the trip back, especially when it’s well-known that the alternative route is unsafe and fraught with risks due to poor visibility and dense fog, as per available information? In addition, wasn’t it the responsibility of those in charge of arranging the visit to be well-informed about the travel plans, mode of transportation and the safety measures in place? Why wasn’t the safety of the entire journey, both to and from the destination, ensured, a duty usually overseen by the president’s security team? How come these questions remain unanswered, alongside many others, such as why didn’t security officials discuss the safety of the helicopter return route with their Azerbaijani counterparts and why didn’t Azerbaijani security officials inform the president’s security team about the risks of using helicopters in that area, especially at night? Last but not least, why was weather data missing from the GPS system on May 19? The list of valid questions seems endless.
What lies ahead for Iran? Yet another paramount question that has gripped the attention of global decision-makers. Reports suggest that upon learning of the disappearance of the helicopter carrying Raisi and Abdollahian from Azerbaijan to Iran, US President Joe Biden abruptly cut short his weekend hiatus and returned to the White House. He convened senior officials in the administration and requested a close monitoring of the situation. Many countries, led by the United States, at Iran’s request, offered to help in locating the helicopter. Rescue teams from various nations, including some sent to the rugged terrain where the aircraft is believed to have crashed, were mobilized, according to available information.
In this context, Iran will have to deal with stormy and decisive challenges until the election of a new president. Again, many questions loom large: Who will be the next president? Is there a potential deal in the works, one that may involve the appointment of a new Supreme Guide, the election of a president and the resolution of political tensions? Speculations abound regarding the possibility of relegating the Supreme Guide’s role to a purely religious one, similar to figures like al-Sistani in Iraq and the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar in Egypt, thereby separating religion from politics. This could signal a transition from clerical rule to a presidential parliamentary democracy, ending the dual security structure that currently exists: on one hand there is the army, tasked with safeguarding security and sovereignty, and on the other, the Revolutionary Guards which export the revolution and interfere in all matters. Consequently, the overall authority has become centralized around the Supreme Guide, and the Revolutionary Guards have become its security military arm. Will religion and politics become dissociated in Iran?
In fact, this is the international community’s ultimate objective: a new Middle East where weapons are in the sole hands of legitimate authorities. According to a Western diplomatic source, the ongoing fundamental changes and transformations in Saudi Arabia for example, will set the stage for the region’s future. He highlights the three countries that must revise their policies, projects and potentially even their systems and performances: Turkey, urged to forsake Sunni extremism; Iran, called upon to stop sponsoring and exporting revolutions and Shiite extremism, while also separating religion from politics and curtailing the authority and role of the Supreme Guide in religious affairs, all while transitioning towards a parliamentary democracy. Finally, Israel, which must renounce racial extremism, remove the term “Jewish state” from its governance system, distance itself from religious extremism, and curb the influence of religious institutions by keeping them out of politics and state decisions.
The diplomatic source highlights that the three countries should adhere to these radical and key transformations, which will pave the way to the following: a comprehensive reconciliation, normalization, promoting moderation and stepping away from religious and racial extremism, stopping armed groups and their role in destabilizing states under the pretext of exporting revolution. With these hoped-for changes, the plan for a new Middle East can then be instituted.
Following Raisi’s death, is the region headed towards a war or a solution? The Revolutionary Guards urged Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Popular Mobilization Forces to escalate their efforts until victory is achieved in Gaza. Will the region undergo the hoped-for changes prior to next July, before Biden’s administration focuses on the election battle and becomes a “lame duck,” namely unable to make any decision during this period? The outlook for convening an international peace conference in the region under UN-International auspices, as advocated by the Arab Summit in Bahrain, doesn’t seem favorable, according to Western diplomatic circles, due to Israel’s position and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s rejection –along with his government– of recognizing the two-state solution. Arab political circles argue that achieving a comprehensive regional peace hinges on replacing Netanyahu’s government with a more moderate political entity, one aligned with the broader regional peace settlement. Will countries like Turkey, Iran and Israel be able to institute internal reforms within their political frameworks to expedite progress toward normalization and usher in a new era in the Middle East?
