Killing Khamenei was a ‘strategic mistake,’ says Israeli opposition leader

Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan says eliminating Iran’s supreme leader failed to advance Israel’s strategic interests and may have strengthened hardliners in Tehran.

Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan has described the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a serious strategic mistake, arguing that the move failed to deliver meaningful benefits for Israel and instead strengthened more hardline elements within Iran.

Golan, head of Israel’s Democrats Party and a former deputy chief of staff of the Israeli military, made the remarks in an interview, according to a report published by Express.pk on October 10.

He argued that removing Khamenei did not improve Israel’s strategic position, challenging the rationale behind the campaign against Iran and the objectives set by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

According to Golan, the outcome has raised questions about whether the Israeli leadership accurately assessed the consequences of targeting Iran’s most powerful political and religious figure.

He suggested that the continued rule of an ageing leader who had held power for decades could, in some circumstances, have been less damaging to an adversary than the leadership transition that followed his removal.

Golan also criticised Netanyahu for setting what he described as unrealistic goals for the war against Iran. He argued that the objective of bringing down the Iranian government had not been achieved and that Israel’s overall strategic position had deteriorated instead.

His assessment points to a central question surrounding the conflict: whether eliminating senior Iranian leadership can produce lasting political change or simply create conditions for more hardline figures to gain influence.

The Israeli opposition leader further expressed concern over the emergence of Mojtaba Khamenei, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son, as Iran’s new leader. He argued that the leadership transition had increased the influence of hardline factions, a development he considered contrary to Israel’s interests.

The remarks amount to a pointed criticism of the Israeli government’s approach to the conflict, particularly its expectations about the consequences of removing Iran’s leadership.

Golan’s comments also highlight the distinction between achieving a military objective and securing a favourable long-term political outcome. Even when a prominent leader is eliminated, the resulting power transition may not necessarily weaken the opposing state or make it more willing to compromise.

For Israel, the key question is whether the campaign has produced a more favourable strategic environment or instead contributed to the consolidation of harder-line forces in Tehran.

Golan’s assessment suggests that the consequences of the war may extend beyond immediate military developments, potentially shaping the regional balance of power and relations between Israel and Iran for years to come.