Iran, the defeat of Islamic extremism

The war between Russia and Ukraine, first, and Hamas’s attack on Israel have changed the rules. The US and Israel have responded by raising the stakes. It is a new world in which the United Nations no longer exists. Another space for international mediation is needed, and perhaps it should arise under the Pope’s aegis.

With the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a global consequence unfolds, and three scenarios emerge for Iran.

The worldwide effect is that the Islamic radicalism encouraged across the globe—among Shiites and Sunnis—by the 1979 Iranian Revolution has been officially defeated, and its global retreat will likely accelerate everywhere. The popularization of the chador and Sharia in majority-Islamic countries and beyond will begin to recede from today. It will be a long and turbulent retreat, full of resistance, but the world has turned the page.

For Iran, three scenarios are possible. The country is divided among factions: liberal and conservative clerics, along with ethnic fissures—Persians, Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, and others. It could splinter and explode, as Iraq did after the Second Gulf War in 2003.

Another scenario is that the regime, despite defeat, resists. This also occurred with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq after the First Gulf War in 1992.

The third, most hoped-for scenario is that a more rational leader emerges, opens the clerical regime, and realigns the country according to new needs.

Certainly, this also represents a further blow to the global consensus that sustained international relations after World War II. This consensus was more important than the structure of the United Nations; it was the mortar that held the foundation together.

The United States and Israel attacked Iran not only for its nuclear rearmament plans. They believed that the hydra of armed and terrorizing Islamic extremism—spreading from the Middle East to Europe and America—had to be struck at its core: Iran. The plan was pursued without public debate, perhaps almost unconsciously. After all, such a plan—to dismantle a medium-power regime like Iran—could hardly be publicly discussed.

The implications are broad. After World War II, the capitalist and communist worlds recognized each other and accepted rules of engagement and mutual mediation. Total warfare was not fought head-on but through the gradual subversion of countries within their “area of competence.” With the end of the Cold War, attacks were limited to minor countries and generally remained within largely accepted parameters.

Russia’s war against Ukraine, first, and Hamas’s attack on Israel have changed the rules, and the US and Israel have responded by raising the stakes.

This has an appendix: the attack was possible because Iran lacked nuclear weapons. North Korea, which pursued its nuclear program, can now feel vindicated and more secure than it was yesterday—indeed, encouraged to expand it rather than abandon it.

It is a new world where the UN no longer exists; another space for international mediation is needed—one that perhaps should arise under the Pope’s aegis, a distinct structure from the Holy See and its diplomacy, yet coherent with it. A new consensus is also required to bring this structure together.

This need seems reinforced by a nearly accidental but embarrassing incident. Italy’s Defense Minister Guido Crosetto is stranded in Dubai, where he arrived just hours before the start of the American attack. In other words, its allies did not inform the Italian government. It’s unclear why this happened, but it is certainly a sign of the country’s overall weakness.

If Italy, the territory where the Holy See’s seat is located, does not get its house in order, there may be global interest in alternative arrangements.

(first published in Italian at https://formiche.net/2026/03/sconfitta-estremismo-islamico-scenari-iran-sisci/#content )