By Matt Underwood 
Iran has confirmed the death of its security chief, Ali Larijani, according to state media reports. This news has sparked a wave of reactions and discussions, with many in the Iranian diaspora celebrating the development, viewing it as a victory for the people. There’s a strong sentiment that Larijani bore significant responsibility for the violent suppression of protests and the loss of many Iranian lives, making his demise unsurprising to many.
The question of who is left within the “state” apparatus is a recurring theme, with some suggesting that only mid-level functionaries remain, akin to bureaucratic figures in other countries. Despite potential leadership changes, it’s believed that the underlying structures and the flow of payments, perhaps to entities like the Iranian equivalent of the TSA, would likely continue. The prevailing sentiment from some quarters is one of relief, a “good riddance” attitude towards those perceived as oppressive.
There are also darker, more salacious insinuations being made, hinting at ulterior motives or hidden aspects of Larijani’s life, such as the age of his wife at the time of their marriage. These comments often veer into accusations of depravity, with some labeling the Security and National Security Council (SNSC) as a group of “pedophiles.” The idea that prominent leadership figures are being eliminated one by one is seen by some as a deeply discouraging prospect for the regime.
From an Iranian perspective, the news of Larijani’s death is met with widespread celebration. He is specifically remembered for his role in carrying out the “January protester massacre,” a grim event that has left a lasting scar. The hashtag #FreeIran is prominently used, underscoring the deep-seated desire for liberation from the current regime.
However, amidst the celebrations, some acknowledge the complexity of Larijani’s role. While clearly viewed as a negative figure by many, he is also identified as someone who was involved in negotiations, potentially serving as an “off-ramp” for diplomatic engagement, particularly with figures like former US President Trump.
The potential repercussions of his death are a subject of considerable thought. For some, it spells further bad news for any prospects of ending the ongoing conflict, highlighting what they perceive as divergent objectives between the United States and Israel, and questioning their reliability as partners. The sheer number of Iranians, estimated at 90 million, is brought into focus, with stark calculations made about the scale of opposition and the hypothetical need to eliminate a significant portion of the population for the regime to fall.
There are contrasting views on Larijani’s character, with some referring to him as a “good man” and a “martyr.” Conversely, others decry the narrative, labeling it as “American propaganda” and suggesting that the claims of state media are misleading. The hypothetical scenario of Supreme Leader Khamenei being in his office the day of an alleged assassination is raised, emphasizing a perceived fearlessness of death within the Iranian leadership.
The concept of “martyrdom” within Shia belief is discussed as a driving factor, suggesting a willingness to embrace death. However, this is contrasted with the notion of using crowds as “human shields,” implying a reliance on civilian presence for protection, a tactic that some believe highlights a stark difference between Iranian and Israeli security strategies. The sentiment of not lamenting his death is widely shared.
The motivation behind Larijani’s death is questioned, with some asserting that Israel’s involvement is not driven by a concern for the Iranian population. The existence of numerous senior figures within the Republican Guard, many of them veterans of prolonged conflicts, is noted, suggesting a continuous cycle of leadership and potential targets. The analogy of dealing with Mexican cartel members is drawn, illustrating the idea that removing one leader simply makes way for another, a common contingency for any organization seeking to maintain power.
There’s a cynical observation about large organizations, suggesting that the top leadership is often less effective than believed. The idea is floated that eliminating the “nepotism hires” could paradoxically lead to the emergence of more competent leaders, a thought that some playfully connect to a certain political figure’s perceived affinity. This leads to a dark humor about a potential “WW3 between pedophiles.”
The lack of concrete sources for claims is a point of contention, with accusations of misinformation and hatred being spread based on assumptions. The contrast is drawn with claims against other figures that are supposedly backed by evidence. The notion of Larijani having “killed ten trillion protesters” is dismissed as outlandish propaganda.
Conversely, there are strong rebuttals against the “good riddance” sentiment, arguing that those expressing it are ignorant of Larijani’s actual role. He is described as a “moderate” and a “negotiator,” whose death is seen as adding fuel to the fire. Cultural context is provided regarding his marriage, challenging accusations of impropriety and drawing parallels with other prominent figures.
The conversation then descends into further accusations of hypocrisy and depravity against perceived adversaries. The idea of installing Chinese-made traffic cameras is brought up, perhaps suggesting a surveillance state. The belief in martyrdom is reiterated, with the prediction that such events will only serve to provoke escalation and make post-war negotiations more difficult.
Larijani is further characterized as the mastermind behind Iran’s strategy of retaliatory attacks and the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting his death was a foregone conclusion given his alleged role in engineering such actions. There’s mention of him being considered a potential candidate for leadership by some international actors prior to certain events.
A stark comparison is made between the percentage of Nazi party members in Germany and the loyalty to the Iranian regime, suggesting that even a small fraction of committed individuals can be enough to destabilize a government that rules through tyranny. The phrase “Glory to the martyrs” is repeated, highlighting a contrasting perspective on sacrifice and death.
The dismissal of “moderates” and “negotiators” from bounties on Iranian leaders is noted, suggesting a deliberate targeting of those who might offer pathways to de-escalation. The chilling statement that “the killings will continue until protestor safety is insured” is made, followed by a graphic and grim remark about piecing together body parts.
The belief that Iran is not holding its own in current conflicts is expressed. The idea that Iranian leadership is unafraid of death is reinforced, with the explanation that this is not the case for the wealthy, who prefer to avoid dying. A comparison is made to evangelical beliefs about the end of the world, suggesting a shared desire for ultimate confrontation.