
The assassination of Ali Larijani constitutes a significant blow to Iran, not only because of his institutional role, but also because of the unique position he held within the country's political and military elite.
According to an analysis by journalist Farnaz Fassihi for the New York Times, Larijani was known for his pragmatism and ability to operate across factional divisions, wielding widespread influence over the political and military elite.
He had been involved in nuclear negotiations with the United States and was seen as a figure who could play a role in a possible resolution of the conflict.
According to the analysis, he was considered one of the few people who could broker an agreement with Washington to end the escalation.
Domestically, Larijani had taken positions that suggested a more moderate approach. He had opposed the inheritance of power from Mojtaba Khamenei and had lobbied for an alternative that would signal a change of direction for Iran, both to the domestic public and to international actors.
According to Fassihi, his death is expected to directly affect the internal balance of power, strengthening the more hardline faction and Revolutionary Guard leaders, who believe that the survival of the regime requires a stronger approach rather than flexibility.
Larijani also played an important role in Iran's international relations. He had close ties with Russia and China, holding direct meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin on nuclear issues and leading negotiations with Beijing for a 25-year strategic agreement.
Before the war, he had also developed contacts with leaders in Oman and Qatar, reflecting an active role in regional diplomacy.
In this context, according to the New York Times analysis, his assassination represents not only the loss of a senior official, but also the weakening of one of the potential channels of communication and balancing inside and outside Iran.