NPR’s Steve Inskeep talks with journalist and author Scott Anderson about Iran’s power structure following the assassination of Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
Steve Inskeep, host:
Ali Larijani is also among the Iranian leaders killed in recent days. He was a longtime Iranian official, most recently the head of their National Security Council. Larijani was a guest on the program once in 2015. We spoke to him in New York, and he spoke defiantly.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR CONTENT)
ALI LARIJANI: (Through interpreter) Every day, it seems like your Secretary of Defense wakes up in the morning, opens the window, he yells something at Iran and says the military option is still on the table. So what does this mean? If you really want war, then fight. Why are you talking about it all the time? Why is it that you just talk about it?
INSKEEP: That’s Ali Larijani speaking to me through an interpreter in 2015. We heard earlier that Israel says a top Iranian intelligence officer has been killed, so recently the head of an Iranian militia and, of course, the supreme leader at the beginning of the war. So how much damage has the United States actually caused to Iran’s power structure? Scott Anderson is following it. His latest book is “King of Kings” about the Iranian Revolution. Mr. Anderson, good morning.
Scott Anderson: Good morning, Steve.
INCIP: I just want to note, even though people have questioned what the strategy is, what the end game is, the number of Iranian missile and drone strikes has declined broadly since the beginning of the war, and a number of Iranian leaders have been killed. Is it fair to say that the US and Israeli campaign has caused significant damage?
Anderson: If you look at it as a conventional conflict, it’s caused a lot of damage, but I think the Iranian regime had prepared for this day for a long time. You look at it – their strategy – from a military standpoint, to basically try to shut down the oil industry in the Persian Gulf.
INSKEEP: Yes.
ANDERSON: And from a political standpoint, I think they knew this was coming for a long time. There are reports that, you know, every government official has three or four or five replacements. So from a traditional perspective, yes, it has worked. But this – if you’re talking about beheading the regime, it won’t work in this instance.
INSKEEP: Why not?
ANDERSON: Because you have replacements for everybody, and you have this monolithic Revolutionary Guard structure that is designed to continue without leadership.
INSKEEP: Let me read you a critique of these recent American and Israeli attacks. This comes from political scientist Vali Nasr, who has been on the show before and posted it yesterday. Larijani’s replacement – so this is the guy that we just heard from, whose voice we just heard, has been killed. Larijani’s replacement will be appointed by the Revolutionary Guard. These will be extremists. With every assassination, the US and Israel are planning to further radicalize Iran’s leadership, Vali says. He says it is counterproductive. Do you think this is correct?
Anderson: I think Vali took a hit on the nose. Absolutely. You – the Israelis are essentially killing people with whom you would possibly want to negotiate or be willing to negotiate and you are replacing them with complete strangers. You know, the idea that you can decapitate the Revolutionary Guard, it’s – again, it goes back to the idea that you think you’re fighting a conventional force. You are not. This is a power that is a huge economic power in the country, and it is designed to withstand this kind of war. And it is becoming stronger and more radical.
INSKEEP: You don’t think the United States will eventually reach a leader who is willing to deal with them, like the former vice president of Venezuela?
Anderson: Not at all. no way. I think exactly the opposite. You know, the Revolutionary Guard knows it has nowhere to go. This is a fight to the death in a way. You know, the idea that they’re going to surrender, and even more absurd, the idea that there’s going to be some kind of popular uprising against the Revolutionary Guard, that’s not the case at all. It doesn’t matter how much bombing happens, how much lead you eliminate. What you are not taking out of the hands of the Revolutionary Guards are the instruments of death that they used against their own people in January – machine guns. You know, the only way for a popular uprising to happen is for foreign troops to come on the ground.
INSKEEP: Is it at least possible that the United States could disrupt or destroy Iran’s command and control – make it impossible to run a centralized government?
ANDERSON: I don’t think so because I think that – again, I think the government prepared for this a long time ago. It is very decentralized. There is no power structure there like you had in Venezuela or even Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It’s far from over – it has far more complex and more complicated administration.
INSKEEP: Scott Anderson is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, and his latest book is “King of Kings,” about the Iranian revolution. Thank you so much sir.
Anderson: My pleasure. Thank you too.
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our Website Terms of Use and Permissions page at www.npr.org for more information.
The accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. The transcript text may be modified to correct errors or match updates to the audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The official record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
