The world woke up to a new and dangerous reality on 28 February 2026. In coordinated military strikes, the United States and Israel launched extensive air and missile campaigns deep inside Iranian territory, resulting in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and members of his family. The strikes targeted 24 provinces across Iran, killing at least 201 people according to Iranian media reports citing the Red Crescent. Among the sites hit were two schools, including the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, where at least 108 people were reported killed .
President Donald Trump announced the death on Truth Social, describing Khamenei as “one of the most evil people in History,” while Iranian state media confirmed the loss and declared a 40-day period of national mourning. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian denounced the strikes as a crime against humanity and vowed a firm response. Within hours, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards launched missile and drone attacks targeting the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and other American bases across the Gulf region. Explosions were reported in Riyadh, Manama, Doha, and Abu Dhabi, where two people were killed including a Pakistani civilian .
The repercussions of this escalation extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They raise urgent questions about the nature of international power projection, the management of global energy supplies, and the future of an international order already under severe strain.
Iran’s Supreme Leader: A Complex Legacy
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who led Iran for 37 years, was in many ways an unlikely supreme leader. Born on April 19, 1939, in Mashhad to a modest religious family, he studied at Islamic seminaries from an early age. He met Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1958 and embraced his philosophy of “Khomeinism”—a worldview informed by anti-colonial sentiment, Shia Islam, and the concept of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist).
From 1962, Khamenei began almost two decades of revolutionary activity against the shah on behalf of Khomeini. He was arrested by the shah’s secret police in 1971 and tortured. When the shah was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Khomeini returned from exile to become the new supreme leader. Khamenei was selected to join the Revolutionary Council, then became deputy defence minister and assisted in organizing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—an institution that would become one of the most powerful political forces in Iran.
After surviving an assassination attempt in 1981, Khamenei was elected president in 1982 and again in 1985. When Khomeini died in June 1989 with no clear successor, Khamenei was a surprising choice for supreme leader. His appointment sparked controversy—some Islamic scholars believed he lacked the clerical rank required under the constitution. A referendum was held to change the constitution, allowing for a supreme leader who has shown “Islamic scholarship.” It passed overwhelmingly, and Khamenei became ayatollah.
Over 36 years, he transformed himself from an underestimated cleric into the unchallenged center of Iran’s power structure. His legacy is deeply contradictory.
Achievements: Khamenei transformed Iran into a regional power capable of projecting influence far beyond its borders. Under his direction, Iran built an “axis of resistance”—a network of allied militias and political movements stretching across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestine. He consistently framed Iran’s nuclear program as a matter of national sovereignty, weathering decades of sanctions and covert sabotage campaigns. His unwavering hostility toward U.S. hegemony resonated with millions across the Muslim world who saw in him a symbol of defiance.
Limitations: However, Khamenei’s rule was also marked by brutal suppression of dissent. Repeated waves of protest—in 1999, 2009, 2017, 2019, 2022, and most recently in late 2025—were met with arrests, shootings, and executions. The 2022 protests, triggered by the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, grew into a nationwide uprising with women removing their headscarves in public. The authorities killed hundreds and arrested thousands. In December 2025–January 2026—just weeks before his death—protests erupted over economic grievances, with his government brutally putting down the uprising. In these protests, some openly chanted for Khamenei’s death.
Economically, while Khamenei blamed U.S. sanctions, his own policies of self-sufficiency, resistance to structural reforms, and tolerance of corruption hampered development. After reformist Masoud Pezeshkian won the presidency in 2024, Khamenei blocked him from negotiating with the United States over sanctions relief. Iran’s defeat in the 12-day war with Israel in 2025 further shredded whatever legitimacy his regime had left.
When Khomeini died in 1989, millions attended his funeral. For Khamenei, many Iranians will likely not show the same grief.
What If He Was Not Dead? The Counterfactual for the World and Nepal
The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei removes a central figure from global geopolitics. But what if he had survived? What would his continued leadership have meant for the world—and for a country like Nepal?
For the World: Had Khamenei lived, he would have remained one of the most consistent voices challenging U.S. hegemony. His survival would have meant continued Iranian support for multilateral forums like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization—groupings explicitly designed to create alternatives to Western-dominated institutions. His deep distrust of the United States, reinforced by Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal, would have meant continued stalemate in nuclear negotiations. Paradoxically, his long tenure also provided a measure of predictability—regional adversaries knew his red lines and understood his strategic calculus. His death introduces significant uncertainty about succession and future Iranian policy.
For Nepal: The connection between Nepal and Iran may not be immediately obvious, but relations have been developing. In recent years, Nepal has maintained diplomatic engagement with Tehran, with discussions around cooperation in agriculture, hydropower, and tourism. Iran has highlighted its capabilities in providing technical and engineering services for hydroelectric power plants—an area of obvious relevance to Nepal’s energy development goals.
Had Khamenei survived, energy cooperation between Nepal and Iran might have progressed. Both nations share opposition to unilateralism in international relations and have expressed support for multilateral approaches. Nepal has consistently supported the right of the Palestinian people and advocated for Palestine’s full UN membership—positions aligned with Iran’s stance. However, Khamenei’s survival would also have meant continued domestic unrest in Iran, as seen in January 2026 when Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued advisories for Nepali citizens in Iran amid escalating protests. The counterfactual remains ambiguous—his survival might have enabled meaningful cooperation, or it might have meant persistent instability complicating any bilateral engagement.
Nepal’s Political Leaders Respond to the Crisis
As the conflict escalated, Nepal’s political leaders moved quickly to express concern and demand action from the government. Their focus was not on geopolitics but on the immediate safety of over 1.9 million Nepali workers employed across the Middle East .
Nepali Congress President Gagan Thapa took to social media to voice serious concern, stating: “The latest tense situation developing in the Middle East has worried us. The security of all our Nepali brothers and sisters residing in various countries for employment and other purposes has become sensitive.” He urged Nepalis abroad to stay informed, follow safety protocols, and remain in secure locations. He also called on the government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Nepali embassies to continuously monitor the situation and take immediate steps for assistance and safe management .
CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli similarly urged the government to take necessary steps for the security of Nepalis in the Middle East. “I call upon Nepali sisters and brothers residing in Middle Eastern countries including the UAE, Israel, and Iran to stay safe and vigilant, and I request the Nepali Embassy there and the Government of Nepal to immediately mobilize for the security of Nepali citizens,” he said .
Coordinator of the Nepali Communist Party Pushpa Kamal Dahal expressed deep concern over the escalating tensions, noting that the evolving situation could have serious implications for the region. “In this context, the safety of hundreds of thousands of Nepalis working in the Middle East is our top priority,” Dahal said. He urged the government to exercise high vigilance, undertake necessary diplomatic initiatives, and make effective arrangements to ensure that no harm comes to any Nepali citizen .
Rastriya Swatantra Party Chairman Rabi Lamichhane urged the government to keep the security and interests of Nepali citizens working in Gulf countries as the highest priority. He pointed out the risk of security conditions becoming complex in Gulf nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain, drawing attention to the lives, employment, and security of millions of Nepalis working there .
Former Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and outgoing Speaker Devraj Ghimire also expressed concern, urging those residing in the Middle East to remain alert and calling on the government to take immediate steps for their security .
The Revolutionary Communist Party Nepal issued a strongly worded statement, framing the conflict in broader terms. Spokesperson Sudarshan stated: “From this, the party synthesizes that the contradiction between oppressed nations and imperialism is the principal contradiction in the world today. American imperialism employs a neo-colonial policy of inciting the people of oppressed nations to revolt over burning issues to establish a favorable regime.” The party expressed serious concern that the lives of more than 1.9 million Nepalis who went to the Middle East for labor are in danger and made a special demand to the government to take necessary steps for their security .
Nepali intellectuals also mobilized. A group of prominent figures including Krishna Pokharel, Ram Karki, Hari Roka, Khagendra Sangraula, Jhalak Subedi, and Yug Pathak issued a joint statement strongly condemning the U.S. airstrikes, calling them a violation of Iran’s sovereignty and a continuation of American imperialist intervention. They linked the Iran strikes to past American and Israeli military interventions in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Lebanon, warning that the escalation could destabilize West Asia further and disrupt global oil and gas supplies .
The Government’s Official Response
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on March 1 expressing deep concern over the conflict. “Nepal expresses its deep concern over the evolving situation in the Middle East and is closely observing the developments there. Nepal urges all parties concerned to exercise maximum restraint, refrain from further escalating tensions, and ensure the protection of civilians. Nepal calls for resolving the differences through diplomacy and dialogue,” the statement read .
The ministry emphasized that “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States should be respected in line with the UN Charter and international law” and that “the rules-based international order and the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security should be upheld” .
The Strategic Drivers: Petrodollars and the “Donroe Doctrine”
To understand why this conflict happened, one must look at the underlying strategic drivers. Since the 1970s, the U.S. dollar has maintained a central role in global energy transactions through the petrodollar system, wherein oil is priced and traded predominantly in U.S. dollars. This mechanism reinforces demand for U.S. currency, bolstering America’s financial leverage globally .
The term “petrodollar” was coined in the mid-1970s when the U.S. and Saudi Arabia agreed that global oil sales would be denominated in dollars. However, this system is now facing serious challenges. Thanks to the shale revolution, the U.S. is now the world’s largest oil producer and a net exporter. Meanwhile, the rise of China and new geopolitical rifts have reduced the percentage of global oil trade denominated in dollars. It is estimated that as much as 20% of the world’s crude trade is now priced in currencies other than the dollar .
The attack on Iran cannot be separated from the January 2026 U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In that incident, Trump was candid about the strategic goal: Venezuela’s vast oil reserves—approximately 300 billion barrels, representing 17% of the global stock. Keeping this production within the U.S. orbit creates more petrodollars and helps maintain U.S. dominance in the global financial system .
This aggressive expansion of influence has been termed by some analysts as the “Donroe Doctrine” —a modern version of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine asserting U.S. dominance. The message to Caracas, Tehran, and any nation seeking to exit the dollar system is clear: attempts to challenge U.S. financial hegemony will be met with regime change .
The Trump administration has threatened to impose tariffs on countries seeking to develop alternatives to the dollar, most notably the BRICS group. Gaining control over Venezuelan oil—especially muscling out China and Russia, the Maduro regime’s allies—fits this broader strategy. Some analysts suggest these actions could accelerate the decline of the petrodollar if nations in the Global South baulk at Washington’s use of military force to maintain currency dominance .
China’s Alternative Path
In stark contrast to U.S. energy diplomacy centered on hydrocarbon markets, China has pursued large-scale investments in renewable energy and infrastructure. Australian think tank Climate Energy Finance reports that since early 2023, Chinese enterprises’ direct investment in overseas green technology has exceeded $180 billion. Chinese companies now produce the majority of the world’s solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles .
China holds approximately 69% of the global electric vehicle battery market. Southeast Asia is a primary destination for Chinese clean energy investment. In Indonesia, CATL is building an electric vehicle battery ecosystem investing about $6 billion. In Malaysia and Thailand, similar projects are underway. In the Middle East and Africa, Chinese enterprises are investing in clean energy projects in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Oman, Nigeria, and Egypt. In Latin America, Chinese companies are developing hydropower stations and upgrading local power grids, helping reduce regional energy costs by 20% .
This divergence highlights a shift toward multipolar competition, with different power centers focusing on alternative models of influence—one anchored in traditional resource geopolitics and another in industrial and infrastructural integration.
The Human Cost and Regional Spillover
The human toll of this conflict is already severe. The strike on the girls’ school in Minab, killing 108 people, has drawn international condemnation. Iran’s UN envoy accused the U.S. and Israel of committing possible war crimes by attacking civilians .
The escalation has disrupted civilian life across the region. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the UAE, and Israel all closed their airspaces to civilian traffic. Multiple airlines canceled flights to the Middle East. Russia canceled commercial flights to both Iran and Israel “until further notice” .
For Nepal, the crisis directly threatens the welfare of nearly two million citizens working in Gulf countries. Their remittances form a backbone of Nepal’s economy, and any prolonged conflict could have severe economic repercussions at home.
Looking Ahead: Succession and Uncertainty
With Khamenei gone, Iran faces an uncertain succession. Three scenarios are possible:
Controlled Transition: The establishment may elevate a pre-approved candidate from within Khamenei’s inner circle. This would provide stability, but the new leader would lack Khamenei’s accumulated authority.
Military Coup: The IRGC, which has gained immense economic and political power, may seize formal control, transforming Iran into a military-dominated state.
State Collapse: A power vacuum triggering ethnic insurgencies and civil war would mean humanitarian catastrophe for Iranians and decades of regional instability.
Iran’s government says an interim council, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, will oversee the country until a new supreme leader is elected .
Conclusion
The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei marks a pivotal moment in contemporary geopolitics. His 36-year rule transformed Iran into a regional power capable of challenging U.S. hegemony, while simultaneously suppressing dissent and isolating his country from much of the world. For supporters, he was the steadfast guardian of Iran’s sovereignty. For critics, he embodied an uncompromising system that stifled reform and tied Iran’s future to perpetual confrontation.
For Nepal, the crisis carries immediate and tangible risks. Political leaders across the spectrum have united in demanding government action to protect Nepali citizens in the conflict zone. The Revolutionary Communist Party has framed the issue in terms of imperial overreach, while mainstream parties focus on practical safety measures. The government has issued a call for restraint and dialogue.
The broader lesson transcends any single leader. As the international order fragments and great-power competition intensifies, smaller nations like Nepal must navigate carefully—resisting external domination while seeking genuine partnerships for development. The conflict in Iran reminds us that sovereignty, once violated, is difficult to restore; that missiles decide fates that ballots should determine; and that in a world of shifting power, the strongest foundation remains an independent foreign policy rooted in national interest.
For now, Iran mourns, the region braces, and Nepal watches—knowing that the death of a leader is rarely the end of the story he represented, and that the safety of nearly two million Nepalis hangs in the balance.
This article is published by onlinepeoplesnews.com, providing in-depth analysis from the heart of the Himalayas. We are committed to balanced reporting on global affairs affecting Nepal and the Global South.