In the first hours of the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran on February 28, 2026, a major strategic assumption was put to the test. If the head of the Islamic Republic were removed, would the regime itself collapse?
The opening strikes killed Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, along with a number of the country’s senior military and security commanders. Operationally, the attacks demonstrated that the attackers could reach the highest levels of Iran’s leadership. But Iran’s political system did not collapse . A new supreme leader emerged, government institutions continued to function, and the war has continued for months. Nearly seven months later, Iran’s political structure remains intact, while military and security institutions continue to play a central role in running the state.
This is not simply an issue specific to Iran. It exposes a much older problem in the theory of air power and coercion. Destroying the top of a system is not the same as paralyzing the system itself. The strategy of decapitation rests on the idea that eliminating senior leaders, especially while attacking their command centers and communications, can destroy a target state’s ability to make decisions and coordinate military operations. If national leaders can no longer communicate with commanders in the theater, the government may be unable to maintain a coherent military strategy or adjust it in response to enemy actions.
But as Robert Pape argues in Bombing to Win , this logic runs into a fundamental obstacle: modern warfare is so complex that even highly centralized governments cannot direct military operations from the top of the state in a detailed, moment-to-moment fashion. The more complex the military organization, the more decision-making has to be distributed across different levels of command.
In practice, political centralization does not necessarily mean operational centralization. The size of modern armed forces, their geographic dispersion, and the speed of military operations make it necessary to distribute command across different levels. Theater commanders can act in emergencies without waiting for approval from higher levels, while strategic communications do not require constant, high-volume exchanges. Strategic orders can be brief and transmitted through multiple channels. If one line of communication is disrupted, another can take its place.
The Soviet experience in World War II, which Pape examines , illustrates the same problem. Stalin created the Stavka as a supreme command body with broad authority to intervene in military decisions. Yet the Soviet leadership recognized that command from the rear was of limited value without sufficient and timely information. Stavka representatives were therefore sent to the front with authority to take command on the spot. Even in a highly centralized political system, the complexity of modern war pushed decision-making downward.
The same point matters in Iran. The Islamic Republic is not simply a collection of individuals at the top of the government. Power is distributed across political institutions, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regular military, security agencies, and administrative structures. Killing senior commanders can disrupt coordination, destroy information, and create a temporary leadership vacuum. But organizations can replace commanders, redistribute responsibilities, and rely on alternative communications channels. The survival of Iran’s governing and security institutions after the deaths of senior leaders illustrates this organizational resilience.
The Taliban offer another example. In 2016, a U.S. drone strike killed Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour , but the strike did not compel the movement to abandon its insurgency. The Taliban replaced its leader and continued operating as an organization, eventually returning to power in Afghanistan in 2021. The case illustrates the difference between disrupting leadership and eliminating the organizational structures that allow a movement to survive and reproduce itself.
The killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 provides another example. His death dealt a significant blow to al-Qaeda, but it did not eliminate the organization , which continued under new leadership.
The second problem is political. Even if removing a leader temporarily disrupts the decision-making structure, there is no guarantee that the person or group who replaces that leader will accept the demands of the attacking state. Decapitation can produce coercive success only if the successor or the new political structure reaches a different calculation about the costs of continued resistance. The removal of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and his replacement by Delcy Rodriguez, who has put up only token resistance to Trump administration demands, is a case in point.
But leadership removal can also produce the opposite result. Foreign attack can strengthen nationalist sentiment, increase the domestic political cost of compromise, and encourage successor leaders to continue resisting. Robert Pape made a similar argument in March 2026 in response to the Iran war , warning against the assumption that the precision of modern weapons gives policymakers equivalent control over political outcomes. Precision can make it easier to destroy a target. It does not make the target state’s political response equally predictable.
The third problem is the assumption that there is an internal force ready to exploit the vacuum created by decapitation. Removing a leader does not by itself produce a popular uprising or a coup. A coup requires part of the military and political elite to be prepared to cooperate ; an uprising requires political and social conditions, as well as an organized network capable of taking power after central authority weakens.
Without such an internal force, decapitation may remove individuals without removing the institutions that sustain the political order. This point is especially important in Iran because the Islamic Republic has spent decades building a network of political, military, security, and economic institutions. Even if the removal of senior leaders deals a serious blow to the government, it does not by itself destroy the network through which power can be reproduced.
Decapitation can still have military effects. Removing commanders can disrupt operations, slow decision-making, complicate coordination, and impose real costs on armed forces. But these effects should not be confused with coercive success.
The ultimate purpose of coercive air power is not simply to destroy targets. It is to change the target state’s calculation: the government must come to believe that continuing to resist will cost more than accepting the demands of the coercing state. Pape’s broader argument is that successful coercion depends on affecting the enemy’s military strategy, not simply destroying leaders or infrastructure.
That is why the Iran war brings an important distinction back to the center of the debate. Removing leaders may demonstrate remarkable intelligence and operational capabilities on the part of the attacker. But there remains a fundamental gap between the ability to kill leaders and the ability to compel a government to change its behavior.
The central question in the Iran war, then, is not whether Iran’s leaders can be targeted. The war has already demonstrated that they can. The harder question is whether removing leaders can push the target state’s political and military structure to a point where continuing to resist becomes intolerable. The answer depends on the military organization’s ability to replace commanders, the resilience of its communications and delegation systems, the mechanisms of political succession, and the leadership’s calculation of the costs and benefits of continuing the war.
Decapitation can be a tool for creating disruption. Turning that disruption into political change is an entirely different problem. The Iran war has shown once again that the gap between destroying targets and changing political behavior remains one of the hardest problems in using air power for coercion.
The post Why Decapitation Doesn’t Necessarily Defeat a Regime appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus .
Why Decapitation Doesn’t Necessarily Defeat a Regime
Aggregated summary from an independent source. Read the original at FPIP.