What if the most dangerous thing in the Middle East isn't a weapon — but a policy? For decades, Israel has pursued a strategy of systematic assassination against Iranian leadership. Not to win wars in any traditional sense, but to eliminate anyone who might negotiate peace. The latest target: Ali Larajani, described by an Israeli newspaper as "the most powerful man in Iran" — killed three days after a profile named him the one guiding the newly appointed Supreme Leader through a particularly complex period.
This isn't new. It's been happening for years. But the assassination of Larajani — who held positions spanning the Revolutionary Guards, parliament, and national security — reveals something more disturbing: Israel has perfected a killing machine that doesn't seek victory in battle. It seeks to destroy any possibility of dialogue.
The Nodal Point
Daniel Levy, a British-Israeli political analyst and former Israeli negotiator during the Oslo process, understands this dynamic better than most. When Larajani was killed on day 18 of the Iran war, he wasn't just another figure removed — he was the link between Iran's clerical establishment, its security apparatus, and its political class.
"He played a very important nodal role linking the clerical establishment to the security establishment to the political establishment," Levy explained. "He had experience dealing with the outside world. He was an important interlocutor on the regional stage."
The Guardian described Larajani as the man expected to guide Iran's newly appointed leader at every turn — a role now impossible after his assassination. Yet Israel has killed so many senior figures that the question becomes whether anyone remains to negotiate with at all.
The Killing Machine
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the assassination in a video message: "We also killed the leader of the Bassij... They are assistant thugs who are wreaking terror in all Iranian cities. We are working with our jet fighters, war planes, drones to shake the foundation of the regime."
The language matters. Larajani was called a "thug" by the Israeli prime minister — despite holding a PhD in philosophy and writing multiple books on Emanuel Kant. He served as culture minister, speaker of parliament, presidential candidate, and secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
Netanyahu has long pursued this strategy. For years, he dragged an American president into his Iran war after decades of trying. The goal: if you can remove enough senior figures, shake the foundations of governing structures, maybe the regime collapses. Maybe it descends into chaos. That was always the plan — not victory in battle, but elimination of negotiation.
The Oslo Ghost
The Oslo Accords of 1993 promised a new era of peace. Daniel Levy was there as an Israeli negotiator. He watched that process fail, watched trust dissolve, and now watches history repeat itself with Iran.
Benjamin Netanyahu's long-term strategy hasn't changed: weaken anyone who might sit across from American diplomats. When Trump administration officials say "our biggest problem is we've got no one to talk with — they seem to have killed all the guys we could have talked to" — that's not a diplomatic failure. It's Israeli success.
The danger isn't just strategic. It's precedent. Israel has assassinated so many senior figures that countries across the region now ask: what international norms remain? The kidnapping of Maduro in Caracas, drone technology making targeted assassinations possible — this is becoming normal.
"We may all look back and say wow, this opened the floodgates," Levy said.
A Counterargument Worth Considering
Some analysts suggest Israel genuinely seeks regime collapse rather than simply preventing negotiation. Others argue that Larajani's removal creates a vacuum that hardliners will fill — potentially making Iran more dangerous than before. The assumption that assassination degrades negotiating capacity may be inverted: it could consolidate power around the most radical figures.
And Trump's inconsistency? His war strategy has shifted constantly — from regime change to friendly reform to enabling protests in Iranian streets. If Israel sees opportunity, it's because American policy remains incoherent.
Bottom Line
The strongest argument here is that Israel's systematic elimination of moderate Iranian leadership isn't about winning a war — it's about ensuring no one can end it. The vulnerability: this strategy requires an enemy who wants peace to succeed; if Iran consolidates around its most radical elements, the assassination of moderates becomes self-defeating. Watch for whether Russia or China move to fill the diplomatic void left by dead negotiators — and whether Israel claims credit or faces consequences.