By AZE.US
Large-scale U.S. and Israeli strikes failed to bring down Iran’s political system but accelerated a transfer of power to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to Javanshir Akhundov, a political analyst and Azerbaijan’s former ambassador to Iran and Latvia.
Speaking on the YouTube program “Modern Conversation with Rasim Babayev,” Akhundov said Iran was evolving from a theocratic state into a “military-theocratic” system in which senior IRGC commanders increasingly control major decisions.
Washington and Israel inflicted severe military, economic and political damage on Iran, he said, but did not achieve what he described as their presumed principal objective: regime change.
“Iran built a very strong political system after the Islamic Revolution, combining state, theocratic, military and security institutions,” Akhundov said. “That system survived.”
According to the former diplomat, officials killed during the strikes were quickly replaced, allowing the state apparatus to continue operating despite substantial losses at the highest levels of government and the armed forces.
But survival did not leave Iran’s political structure unchanged.
Akhundov said the center of power had shifted toward a group of approximately 10 IRGC generals. He described the organization as a state within a state, with military, political and economic structures operating across Iran’s provinces.
The IRGC’s influence extends far beyond national security. It controls major economic assets and works closely with religious foundations, known as bonyads, that oversee a significant share of the Iranian economy.
That system sharply limits President Masoud Pezeshkian’s ability to pursue an independent economic policy, Akhundov said.
“The president is being blamed for the economy, but many of the country’s economic institutions are not under his control,” he said.
The contradiction between formal civilian government and the IRGC’s growing authority could become a major source of instability once the active phase of the conflict ends, according to Akhundov.
He said external threats had temporarily pushed society toward unity, but Iran’s leadership would eventually face difficult questions about the cost of the war, damage to the economy and the value of continuing the country’s nuclear program.
Inflation, declining living standards, infrastructure damage and constant security pressure have already increased public frustration. Akhundov predicted that Iranians would eventually demand economic and social reforms, as well as changes to the government’s approach toward the country’s ethnic communities.
Debate over the nuclear program is also intensifying within the political establishment, he said. Reformists and some pragmatic figures are increasingly questioning whether the program justifies the economic and political price paid by the country.
Akhundov also pointed to corruption investigations involving individuals connected to senior Iranian officials. He said prosecutors had opened a case against 53 people linked to oil transactions worth approximately $110 billion.
About $11 billion from those transactions was allegedly not returned to Iran, he said, adding that children of several senior officials were reportedly among those implicated. Akhundov cautioned that reports of arrests in the case had not yet been fully confirmed.
A Prolonged Conflict
Akhundov predicted that the confrontation between Washington and Tehran could develop into a prolonged conflict without a clearly defined end.
The United States is likely to rely on limited strikes in the near term rather than launch another major operation, he said. Washington’s strategy could change after the U.S. congressional elections.
The analyst also argued that the United States had deliberately reduced Israel’s direct role in the current stage of the confrontation to prevent uncontrolled escalation. That decision, he said, should not be interpreted as an end to military pressure on Iran.
Tehran, meanwhile, has declared an area stretching from the port of Chabahar to the Strait of Hormuz as a zone of strategic interest. Akhundov said this indicated that tensions surrounding commercial shipping and global energy supplies would continue.
Although the campaign did not produce regime change, the United States secured other strategic and economic advantages, he said. Higher global oil prices have benefited U.S. producers and accelerated a broader shift in energy markets toward suppliers in the Western Hemisphere.
Producers including the United States, Venezuela, Guyana, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Ecuador could gradually challenge the market position of Middle Eastern exporters, according to Akhundov.
Instability around the Persian Gulf has also affected regional financial centers and trade routes. The disruption goes beyond crude oil, potentially affecting liquefied natural gas, aluminum, fertilizers and financial services across the Middle East and Asia.
Azerbaijani-Language Exchange Draws Reaction in Iran
Akhundov separately addressed criticism in some Persian-language circles over an Azerbaijani-language conversation between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian during their meeting in Bishkek.
He described the criticism as unjustified and said Azerbaijani had previously been used in informal exchanges between the leaders and officials of the two neighboring countries.
The unusually hostile reaction, he argued, reflected broader tensions within Iranian society rather than a serious diplomatic dispute.
Iran’s greatest political challenge may therefore emerge after the fighting ends, Akhundov said, when the public begins demanding answers about the country’s losses and the decisions that led to them.
Iran’s governing system has survived, he concluded, but it has become more militarized and increasingly dependent on the IRGC – a shift likely to shape the country’s domestic and foreign policies for years to come.
AZE.US