The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ
Recent operations by the U.S. military have led some to believe that a decapitating strike is a silver bullet capable of fixing any foreign policy problem swiftly. However, this logic is flawed, and the risks of relying on swift, targeted actions are too great to ignore.
For an extended period, American foreign policy revolved around the idea of strategic containment, including sanctions, deterrence, and diplomatic pressure. With Donald Trump returning to the White House, the U.S. adopted a new National Security Strategy that embraced a realism-driven policy approach.
A few weeks later, the U.S. launched Operation Absolute Resolve, resulting in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The operation was carried out in two stages. First, the U.S. Armed Forces struck Venezuelan infrastructure to suppress air defenses. Parallel to this, a dedicated task force launched an attack on Maduro’s compound, seizing the Venezuelan leader and his wife.
Fast forward to February 27, 2026, the U.S. and Israel launched a coordinated joint attack targeting Iran. On the first day of the operation, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in an air strike. In theory, the strike represented another successful example of decapitation.
However, in practice, things are far more complicated. The conflict continues, and the Iranian military retains operational capacity, striking the U.S. and Israeli assets in the Middle East. Unlike in Venezuela, the operation in Iran did not end in a swift victory, showing that removing a leader does not automatically dismantle a state’s military capabilities.
Several factors explain the variation in these two cases. First, Venezuela boasts modest military resources and capabilities compared to Iran. Tehran has developed domestic drone and missile programs, coupled with years of preparation for potential confrontation with Israel and the U.S. These factors provided Iran with a higher level of resilience compared to Venezuela.
Regime structure and ideology are other variables explaining the variance in the outcome. In contrast to Venezuela, the Iranian political system is vastly different, with institutions playing a more prominent role in policymaking.
The Assembly of Experts elects a successor to maintain political continuity. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) protects leadership and holds significant influence across military, political, and economic affairs. The Guardian Council oversees candidates and ensures ideological consistency.
These institutions create a safety net and ensure Iran is not dependent on a single individual, maintaining cohesion even after the Supreme Leader’s death.
Relying purely on decapitation strikes presents significant risks. One major issue is the unpredictable response. Iranian forces continue to strike regional targets, highlighting strategic uncertainty. Another problem is regional escalation; removing leaders can trigger chaos, prolonging conflicts and creating instability.
Finally, decapitation strikes may produce a “rally-around-the-flag” effect, where foreign attacks boost domestic support for the regime rather than weaken it.
Policymakers must avoid treating decapitation strikes as a one-size-fits-all solution. Success depends on the adversary’s institutional resilience, military capability, and strategic context. Removing a leader may bring short-term gains but rarely ensures lasting political stability.
Decapitation strikes are merely one tool in the foreign policy toolbox, not a guarantee of victory.
Iran temporarily reopened the Strait of Hormuz on Friday (17 April) following a ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, ra...
Australia and Japan signed contracts on Saturday (18 April) launching their landmark A$10 billion ($7 billion) dea...
Global shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has shown signs of partial recovery after Iran announced it was open to commercial vessels during a li...
Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping on Friday (17 April) for the first time since the U.S. and Israel killed Iran's ex-Su...
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has said his country could provide a “safe corridor” and “alternative route” for regional ...
The collapse of the Islamabad meeting now appears less definitive than initially reported. New information suggests what was widely framed as failure may instead have been a premature political interpretation of an ongoing negotiation process.
The United Nations Security Council did not fail because it was silent after the war against Iran began on 28 February 2026.
In times of geopolitical upheaval, nuance is often the first casualty. Complex realities are reduced to convenient narratives and countries caught in the crosscurrents of regional tensions find themselves portrayed through a single, often misleading lens.
In the Middle East, wars rarely remain confined to battlefields. Their most profound and enduring consequences are often measured not in military victories but in human displacement.
The past 24 hours of the Russia-Ukraine war have seen a drastic escalation in both aerial bombardment and frontline losses.
Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping on Friday (17 April) for the first time since the U.S. and Israel killed Iran's ex-Supreme Leader in air strikes, triggering the Middle East conflict, at the end of February. A U.S. blockade on Iranian ports, however, remains in force.
Russia published addresses of manufacturers allegedly producing drones or components for Ukraine on Wednesday (15 April), warning European countries against plans to step up UAV supplies to Kyiv.
Netflix shares fell sharply on Friday after the streaming group issued a weaker-than-expected outlook and said chairman and co-founder Reed Hastings will step down from the board.
U.S. President Donald Trump says Israeli and Lebanese leaders have agreed to a 10-day ceasefire that includes Hezbollah, raising cautious hopes of a pause in hostilities after weeks of escalating tensions.
The current Middle East crisis has already had profound macroeconomic and energy consequences. It also reflects a broader phase of globalisation, where interdependencies can be weaponised for geopolitical purposes.
The collapse of the Islamabad meeting now appears less definitive than initially reported. New information suggests what was widely framed as failure may instead have been a premature political interpretation of an ongoing negotiation process.
Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Economy signed a Memorandum of Understanding on 10 March with Haimaker.AI Inc., a U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) technology company, to develop a next-generation digital platform and ecosystem.
There are moments in history when energy ceases to be merely an economic commodity and becomes a defining pillar of geopolitical order. We are living through one such moment.
At a time of deepening global polarisation, rising conflict and shrinking space for dialogue, Pakistan is stepping into a historic role. Diplomatic engagements in Islamabad, bringing together regional powers amid the Iran crisis, signal both urgency and opportunity.
You can download the AnewZ application from Play Store and the App Store.
What is your opinion on this topic?
Leave the first comment