Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Monday Commentary

Monday Commentary: Trump opens Pandora’s box and Ayatollah Khamanei has the last laugh

3 March 2026

On Saturday (28 February) the United States and Israel launched a new war, attacking Iran, even though talks between the US and Iran were on-going in Geneva, and Omani mediators thought that an agreement between the two was within reach. In the first engagement of the new war the US and Israel, targeted and killed Ayatollah Khamanei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, and many other Iranian senior officials.

The war has raged on for the last few days, and has spread quickly to other countries in the region. It is clear we are at the beginning of something big. This is not a local conflict. It is a conflict with global ramifications, and we are only at the start.

A war with unclear objectives

The war has unclear objectives from the two countries that initiated it. Stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power is one, yet everything suggests that this objective could be reached with negotiations; a second objective is to take out Iran’s military capability, including missiles and drones. The current military campaign will dent Iranian capability, but will not eliminate it. The third objective which was the highlight on Saturday, but has become less pronounced since is “regime change”.

On its part, the Islamic Republic of Iran has one objective – the survival of the system that was put in place after the 1979 revolution. The Supreme Leader will be replaced, as will officials that have been killed. But the system wants to show that it is more durable than mere mortals.

Trump had been told by many, including friends and associates, not to start the war. But the American leader has been emboldened by “successes”, such as his adventure in Venezuela, and was persuaded by Israel’s Netanyahu, who has his own agenda, and ignored all advice and opened “Pandora’s box”. What will come out we can only guess. One thing is sure: the Middle East will never be the same again. The impact on the Gulf states will be huge; for them this is the nightmare scenario. It is turning out worse than they had ever imagined.

Iran

Iran is a country with a long history, and a complex societal fabric. It has a population of over ninety million. According to the US Library of Congress, 65% are Persians (also including Gilaks and Mazenderanis, 16% Azerbaijanis, 7% Kurds, 6% Lurs, 2% Arabs, 2% Balochis, 1% Turkic tribal groups (such as Qashqai), and non-Persian, non-Turkic groups (less than 1%). Whilst Persians provide the core of the population, they are constantly concerned that outsiders will use this diversity to undermine the country’s unity and territorial integrity. This deeply held concern is considered in the present situation too.

Shia Islam

Shia Islam is followed by about 10% of all Muslims, numbering at an estimated 200–260 million followers worldwide as of 2025. Shia Muslims form a majority of the population in Iran, Iraq and Azerbaijan, as well as about half of the citizen population of Bahrain. There are also large Shia communities in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and India.

In Iran, Shia Islam is the basis of the state, and the country is ruled by the Shia clergy, who control all aspects of society.

Ayatollah Khamanei has the last laugh

The war opened with the assassination of the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamanei. Khamanei had been Supreme Leader since 1987, and was both the spiritual leader of all Shias and temporal leader of Iran. But at 86, he was old and frail.

On 28 February he was sitting in his office in Tehran, despite the threat of an imminent US attack. Many had speculated that he had been spirited away to a secret bunker. Apparently Khamanei refused to go. He insisted on following his routine. Khamanei wanted to die as a martyr, and Trump obliged. This fatalism is at the heart of Shia Islam. It explains Iranian stubbornness and resilience. It is something that Americans, and especially Trump, fail to factor in.

No doubt the fact that there will be a new Supreme Leader – only the third since 1979 – will bring some changes to Iran. But the Islamic Republic is a system regardless of who is at the top.

The future

It is very difficult to predict the future in such a volatile situation as has emerged since Saturday. There are no simple explanations or solutions.

But it is likely that the Islamic Republic will endure. The system may, in order to survive, update itself. This is necessary and overdue. But it will not happen under American and Israeli aerial fire.

The Gulf will never be the same again. The relations between Iran and the Gulf countries will be poisoned for a long time. Most GCC countries have the financial cushion to help them pull out of the present crises. But money on this occasion, may not be enough.

The war will also impact the Trump administration. This may prove a gamble too far for the American president.

But for all three, we are only at the beginning. And this story is only just starting, so in truth, anything can happen.

source: Monday commentary is written for commonspace.eu by Dr. Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Europe, and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut