The killing of Ali Larijani in an Israeli attack is not just another blow to Iran’s leadership, but may represent a loss with deeper and more complex consequences than even the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei at the start of the war.

As The Guardian explains, the importance of the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council was not limited to a formal institutional role.

On the contrary, he was one of the few politicians in Iran able to bridge multiple layers of power: from the Revolutionary Guards to the political leadership, and from the domestic system to key international actors such as China and Russia.

An irreplaceable “power broker”

Unlike Khamenei, whose authority was absolute but more centralized and symbolic, Larijani functioned as a node of coordination and balance. He had the trust of the military establishment while also maintaining channels with more pragmatic and moderate forces.

This rare dual role made him indispensable during a period of intense internal and external pressure.

The void left behind and geopolitical consequences

His loss becomes even more significant when considering the role he could have played in a transition scenario.

According to The Guardian’s analysis, Larijani may have been the only politician capable of acting as a “bridge” in potential negotiations or even in a controlled political transition.

His killing effectively removes this option, drastically limiting the ability to manage the crisis flexibly.

At the same time, his presence in the Supreme National Security Council made him a crucial link between the military and political leadership, especially after recent conflicts. He was among the key architects of Iran’s strategy and one of the few figures able to convey credible messages both domestically and to Gulf countries.

His death leaves behind a gap that is not just institutional, but operational for Iran.

As highlighted in The Guardian’s analysis, his loss deprives the regime of a key connector between different centers of power and increases the risk of hardline elements prevailing—figures who lack the same flexibility or international acceptance.

Moreover, his absence exposes an even deeper issue: the lack of alternative leadership figures within Iran. As noted, the “pool” of potential successors or transitional figures is now extremely limited, making any effort toward political stabilization more difficult.