Skip to content
Iran Conflict 2026
19APR

IDF hits Assembly of Experts during vote

3 min read
11:05UTC

The IDF hit the Assembly of Experts headquarters while the body chose Ali Khamenei's successor. Members of the constitutional body were among the casualties.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Striking a constitutional deliberative body mid-session is without clear modern precedent in the laws of armed conflict, creating legal ambiguity that both sides will exploit and that sets a potentially destabilising international norm.

The IDF struck the Assembly of Experts headquarters in Tehran on Tuesday while the body was meeting to choose a successor to Ali Khamenei. Multiple members were killed or wounded, according to Israel Hayom and Middle East Eye. Iranian state media claimed the Building had been evacuated before the strike — a claim that cannot be independently assessed while Iran's internet blackout holds connectivity at 1% of normal levels . No foreign journalists are operating inside Iran.

The timeline of the succession vote relative to the strike is unresolved. Whether the Assembly voted before the strike, in its chaotic aftermath, or reconvened in a dispersed emergency session at an alternate location has not been established by any source with direct knowledge. The Assembly's headquarters in Tehran had already been struck during the campaign's opening hours , when Chatham House analyst Sanam Vakil assessed that the body might not convene until operations wound down. It convened anyway — and was hit again.

The strike fits an established pattern of targeting Iran's institutional infrastructure. The IRGC's Sarallah headquarters, state broadcaster IRIB's Tehran offices , and now the body constitutionally responsible for choosing The Supreme Leader have all been struck. President Trump stated that Iran's "new leadership" had been specifically targeted . The progression from military sites to the state broadcaster to the succession body itself represents the systematic dismantling of institutional capacity — command, communications, and now political continuity.

Targeting a constitutional body during a succession process has no direct precedent in the conflict between these states. Iran's last leadership transition — when Ali Khamenei succeeded Ruhollah Khomeini in June 1989 — occurred peacefully, within hours of Khomeini's death, by a body that was intact and uncontested. This succession occurred under bombardment, in a communications blackout, with members of the selecting body among the casualties. Whether the strike was timed to disrupt the vote or coincided with it through operational scheduling is unknown. The effect on the legitimacy of the outcome is the same.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The Assembly of Experts is Iran's body of senior clerics that — constitutionally — appoints and can remove the Supreme Leader. Israel struck their headquarters while they were in the middle of choosing Khamenei's successor. It is roughly equivalent to bombing a parliament during a vote to elect a new head of state. Whether that makes it a legitimate military target — on the grounds that the successor would command Iran's war effort — or an attack on a civilian constitutional institution is genuinely contested under international law. Both Iran and its adversaries know the legal ambiguity and will use it to their respective advantage.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Israeli targeting doctrine since the 2006 Lebanon war — the 'Dahiya doctrine' — holds that civilian infrastructure used for strategic purposes becomes a legitimate military target. The IDF appears to have assessed the succession deliberation itself as a strategic military decision, treating the identity of the next Supreme Leader as operationally relevant to Iran's conduct of the war and the Experts' session as therefore targetable.

Escalation

The strike's operational outcome may have achieved the inverse of IDF intent: by disrupting the succession process, it appears to have accelerated a rushed, constitutionally invalid result producing a Supreme Leader wholly dependent on the IRGC with no internal clerical counterweight — removing the moderating pressures on Iranian war strategy more effectively than simply killing Experts members would have.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    The strike's acceleration of the succession process — producing a constitutionally contested result under duress — may have handed Iran a propaganda narrative of Israeli interference in Iranian sovereignty that strengthens domestic support for the new leadership among populations otherwise sceptical of dynastic succession.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Risk

    If the succession vote is later characterised as coerced or constitutionally void, it creates a legal and political pretext for internal power struggles or rival factions to contest Mojtaba's authority.

    Medium term · Suggested
  • Precedent

    Striking a constitutional deliberative body during a succession process sets a norm other state actors could invoke to justify targeting legislative or constitutional institutions during armed conflict.

    Long term · Assessed
First Reported In

Update #17 · IRGC installs Khamenei's son as leader

Israel Hayom· 4 Mar 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.
Trump administration
Trump administration
Oscillating between claiming diplomatic progress and threatening escalation, while deploying additional ground forces to the Gulf.
Israeli security establishment
Israeli security establishment
Fears a rapid, vague US-Iran agreement that freezes military operations before the IDF achieves what it considers full strategic objectives. A senior military official assessed the campaign is 'halfway there' and needs several more weeks.
Iraqi government
Iraqi government
Iraq's force majeure is the position of a non-belligerent whose entire petroleum economy has been paralysed by a war between others — storage full, exports blocked, production being cut with no timeline for resumption.
Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia
Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia
Moscow calibrated its position between Gulf states and Iran: abstaining on Resolution 2817 rather than vetoing it, signalling it would not block protection for Gulf states, while refusing to endorse a text that ignores the US-Israeli campaign it regards as the conflict's proximate cause. Russia proposed its own ceasefire text — which failed 4-2-9 — allowing Moscow to claim the peacemaker role while providing Iran with satellite targeting intelligence, a duality consistent with its approach in Syria.
France — President Macron
France — President Macron
France absorbed its first combat death in a conflict it has publicly declined to join. The killing of Chief Warrant Officer Frion in Erbil forces Macron to choose between escalating involvement and accepting casualties from the margins.