Ali Larijani—Killing the Off-Ramp
From Khamenei to Larijani: the strategy of removing restraint
When Israel announced that Ali Larijani had been “eliminated,” the Zionist commentariat tried to frame it the way it frames every assassination in this war: a clean tactical success, a “decapitation” of the enemy, a surgical move that supposedly brings “peace” closer.
But Larijani was not a battlefield commander. He was, in many ways, the opposite of what the war-hungry camp wants to see alive inside Iran: a balancing force, a pragmatist with institutional weight, and a man associated with diplomacy, especially the kind of diplomacy that could provide Trump with an exit ramp.
That is why he was targeted. Because in a war increasingly decided by escalation dynamics and economic blowback, Larijani represented the political capacity to craft a post-war settlement if and when Tehran decided it was ready to end the confrontation, and if and when Trump reached the conviction that he could no longer bear the historical economic repercussions.
In other words, if you want to prevent de-escalation, you hit the people who can negotiate.
Who was Ali Larijani and why he mattered
Larijani represented a pillar of institutional continuity, a bridge between security and politics, and a recognizable figure for any serious backchannel or settlement logic. Larijani was the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. The kind of role that matters in war termination: the state’s political brain, not only its military muscle.
Two days before his assassination, Larijani addressed the Islamic world with a structured statement directed to Muslim-majority governments, calling them out, morally, politically and religiously, for their silence and complicity while Iran was being attacked.
He framed the war as a “deceptive American-Zionist aggression” launched during negotiations, aimed at dismantling Iran, and he pointed to the fact that the assault had already produced “martyrdom” at the top of the Iranian leadership and among civilians and commanders, yet was met with Iranian national and Islamic resistance.
He then delivered the line that should embarrass every Arab capital: aside from rare exceptions and mostly symbolic statements, Islamic states failed to stand with Iran, even as Iran—by his description—pushed the aggressor into an impasse.
And then, in a religious register that many Gulf monarchies understand all too well (or not?), he invoked a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad—arguing that whoever hears a Muslim calling for help and does not respond is not truly part of the community—before asking, rhetorically, what kind of Islam this is.
Larijani’s statement was a political message that Iran is not alone because it is weak; it is isolated because the region has been disciplined into silence or complicity. And by articulating that so bluntly, Larijani was doing something dangerous: he was trying to mobilize a moral and political front beyond Iran’s borders.
That is exactly the kind of voice the enemies of Iran had to remove.
After Khamenei, everything changed
Larijani’s killing also has to be read in the shadow of a much larger event: the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, which crossed a threshold that cannot be uncrossed.
Khamenei’s assassination backfired immensely for Washington and Tel Aviv because it ended Iran’s strategic patience and shifted Iran from a defensive posture to a more offensive one.
That point matters because assassinations reshape internal politics. They harden factions. They delegitimize compromise. They empower the most resolute actors because, after a leadership decapitation attempt, the argument for restraint becomes politically toxic.
That is why, if a pragmatist like Larijani is removed, he will be replaced by someone more steadfast in defending Iran, strengthening resolve, and deepening confrontation rather than reducing it.
The U.S and Israel keep repeating the same playbook, believing that eliminating “moderates” will soften the system. In reality, eliminating moderates removes the very people who can sell compromise internally.
U.S. intelligence says Iran is consolidating, not collapsing
The most humiliating aspect of this entire escalation is that even the mainstream press is now forced to admit: Iran is not collapsing.
U.S. intelligence assessments say Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) is consolidating power despite weeks of airstrikes, likely remaining in place, “weakened but more hardline,” with the IRGC security apparatus exerting greater control.
Intelligence assessments issued since the war began predict the Iranian system will remain intact and may even feel emboldened, believing it stood up to Trump and survived.
This is not a small detail. It is the strategic reality that makes Larijani’s assassination even more revealing.
If Iran were truly on the verge of collapse, you would not need to kill diplomats and balancing forces. You would let the system fall under its own contradictions. But the very act of targeting Larijani suggests the opposite: the system is holding, and the war planners are trying to destroy not only Iran’s military capability, but Iran’s political capacity to exit the war on its own terms.
That is why this assassination matters geopolitically: to eliminate the possibility that Trump can take an offramp.
The real implication: escalation by design
If you want to understand where this is heading, stop looking at assassinations as “successes” and start reading them as signals.
Larijani’s death signals that one side—Israel, and the networks aligned with it—wants escalation “to historical rooftops,” even if that means gambling with catastrophic outcomes. It signals that the war is being forced forward at moments when de-escalation becomes possible. And it signals that the people who could craft a settlement are being systematically removed.
Ironically, the more Israel and the U.S. push assassinations as a tool of war termination, the more they guarantee war continuation, because they are creating the exact political environment inside Iran where compromise becomes betrayal and deterrence becomes the only language left.
Therefore, Killing Larijani was strategic.
It was the assassination of an exit ramp.
All of my op-eds are freely available, thanks to the generous support of readers like you. Nonetheless, independent journalism takes time, research, and resources. If you find value in this piece or others I’ve published, please consider sharing it or becoming a paid subscriber. Your support, whether big or small, truly matters and helps keep this work going.
—Kevork Almassian is a Syrian geopolitical analyst and the founder of Syriana Analysis.
Bibi has no cause without a war...Many Israelis want to lock him up. Without emergency war powers and a "dangerous enemy" that's probably where he'd be (locked up/incarcerated) .
Thank you, Kevork. I was heartsick when Larijani's death was confirmed. He was a scholar statesman, a man of courage, and a voice of reason. I completely agree with your assessment, and I hope the aggressors pay a huge price for this.