&w=3840&q=100)
What Happens if Trump Decides to Strike Iran or Assassinate Its Leader?
And if the United States assassinates Iran's supreme leader, as Trump hinted was possible, there are no guarantees he will be replaced by a friendlier leader.
Iran's autocratic clerical leadership, which has ruled for nearly half a century since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, has proved its staying power, even in the face of multiple domestic uprisings. Demolishing Fordo, the enrichment site buried deep in a mountain, may not obliterate Iran's nuclear program and could lead the country to broaden the war or accelerate that program.
Here are some ways it could play out if the United States enters the war.
Iran could negotiate
Before Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear program and other targets last week, Iran and the United States were discussing limits on Iran's uranium enrichment program. It was rapidly producing fuel close to the levels needed for nuclear weapons, and in exchange for new limits on the program, Iran would win relief from economic sanctions.
The two sides were nowhere near a final agreement, but signs of a possible compromise had emerged by early June. When Israel attacked Iran, the negotiations collapsed.
Yet Iran has signaled that it remains willing to talk, and even a strike on Fordo would not necessarily wipe out prospects of a return to the negotiating table.
If the Trump administration follows an attack on Iran with an enticing offer, such as large-scale sanctions relief or peace guarantees, there is still a chance that Iran would consider making concessions, said Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
'Is there an offer on the table that the Iranian people in this moment can actually rally around?' he said. 'If it's only a stick, then they're going to fight.'
So far, Trump has not extended many carrots.
He called in a social media post on Tuesday for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.'
Iran may lean into nuclear activity
All eyes are on Fordo. But it is possible that Iran has secret nuclear sites aimed at producing weapons that the United States and Israel do not know about, though no public evidence has emerged of such places.
If they do exist, Iran could use whatever it has left to try to accelerate its nuclear program in the wake an American attack.
With the damage Israeli airstrikes have done to nuclear facilities and the killings of top nuclear scientists, Iran probably lacks the capacity to build a nuclear weapon quickly, analysts said. Still, it could move in that direction and would have fresh incentive to do so.
'You would begin to see that broader escalation that they've held back on,' said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House. After all, Iran would have few other options left for deterring future attacks, she added.
Iran's Parliament has publicly discussed a withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The treaty, of which Israel is not a signatory, currently requires Iran to submit to oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other transparency obligations and to commit to not building a nuclear bomb.
So far, the government has reiterated its longstanding insistence that Iran's nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. But Iran has firmly refused to capitulate to a central American demand that it give up uranium enrichment, saying it has the right to a civilian nuclear program.
The war could get bigger and messier
Over the past week, Iran has avoided striking American troops or other targets that could pull the United States into the war.
Its leaders may still be hoping to make a deal with the Trump administration to end the conflict and wary of taking on the US military on top of Israel's.
Though Iran has responded to Israeli attacks with missiles and threats of its own, it has refrained from hitting American troops or bases in the Middle East. It has also not struck Arab countries allied with the United States, such as Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates.
Nor has it sent global oil prices soaring by sealing off or harassing traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping channel to Iran's south. But at least one Iranian official has warned that Iran could do so if the United States enters the war.
And Iran's allied militias in the region, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and armed groups in Iraq, have not joined the fight. Many of them have been seriously weakened over the past two years.
But those Iranian allies could still join the fray if the Trump administration decides to strike.
If the United States tries to force Iran to capitulate, 'Iran will keep hitting until the end of the missile capabilities,' said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Talk of regime change
Trump said on social media this week that the United States is weighing whether to kill Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but had decided 'not for now.'
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said in a Fox News interview this week that changing Iran's regime 'could certainly be the result' of this war.
Even if the United States assassinates Khamenei, however, the religious-military establishment that has tightly held power in Iran for nearly five decades may not fall.
With a war raging, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most powerful branch of Iran's military, could seize control of the country, said Nasr, the professor.
They might put in place a more Western-friendly government, or, more likely, replace Khamenei with a more extreme figure who would dig in for a long fight, Nasr added.
If the military does not assert itself quickly, some analysts fear that Iran could plunge into chaos or civil war as different factions struggle for control.
But they see little chance for Iran's liberal opposition, which has been weakened and brutally repressed by the regime, to prevail.
Iran's people could rise up again
Netanyahu encouraged the Iranian people last week to capitalize on Israel's attacks on their government and 'rise up' against their 'evil and oppressive regime.'
Iranians have staged mass protests against clerical rule several times in recent history, most recently with the 'Women, Life, Freedom' demonstrations of late 2022. Each time, the opposition has faced a harsh crackdown by government security forces.
Some Iranians so despise the clerical leaders that they have at times looked to Israel as an ally and openly hoped for the United States to install new leadership.
Some Iranian opponents of the regime cheered Israel's initial attacks on Iran, which they saw as more evidence of their government's incompetence and mismanagement. But the growing death toll, the attacks on civilian infrastructure and the panic gripping Iranian cities are hardening many in the country against Israel.
Iranian social media platforms have been full of patriotic posts in recent days, expressing unity against foreign intervention, if not exactly support for the regime.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scroll.in
30 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump-Putin summit: Land-for-ceasefire deal will be terrible for everyone
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there', Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress'. Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there will be a land swap, Trump said: 'those are points that we largely agreed on'. Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernise its defence capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the west. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defence technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Making reconstruction harder Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion (£387 billion) according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the west. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months.


Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
India's torment over tariff continues as Zelenskyy heads to White House
TOI correspondent from Washington : European leaders, including the heads of France, Germany, Britain, and Italy, will join Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Monday for talks with President Trump that could determine the future course and fate of many nations, including that of India on the economic front. The Trump-engineered peace agreement envisages Kiev giving up Russian captured territory in return for non-Nato security guarantees, proposals the Europeans and Ukraine are chary of given the US President's convivial ties with Putin. But challenging Trump also risks continuing a war that Trump thinks Ukraine is certain to lose and fracturing the 75-year old Atlantic alliance that has depended on the US for security. Zelenskyy will return to the Oval Office on Monday morning with the world's eyes trained on the meeting and memories of the shellacking he got from Trump and vice-president Vance for what they saw as ingratitude in the face of adversity. He will also be accompanied by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, as they try to forestall what is essentially a surrender before the emerging Trump-Putin alliance. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo The US President exuded confidence ahead of the meeting, posting "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" and excoriating the liberal media for describing the Alaska summit as a win for Putin. "If I got Russia to give up Moscow as part of the Deal, the Fake News, and their PARTNER, the Radical Left Democrats, would say I made a terrible mistake and a very bad deal. That's why they are the FAKE NEWS! Also, they should talk about the 6 WARS, etc. , I JUST STOPPED!!!" Trump posted. But analysts say permitting Russia to keep captured Ukrainian territory sets a dangerous precedent for smaller countries facing bigger neighbors with historical grievances eyeing their territory. Trump though sees Ukraine being in an unwinnable position -- certainly without US support -- and would rather have Kiev sue for peace by conceding lost territory and keeping what remains. India, which has little to do with the Russia-Ukraine war but has high stakes in a peace deal, looks likely to face several more weeks of agony and uncertainty, as the Ukraine-EU combine puts up resistance against Trump-Putin initiative to end the war while seeking a trilateral meeting to hash out details. There is growing disapproval among regional experts over Trump's handling of ties with New Delhi, in particular his victimisation of India with punitive tariffs to achieve peace on the Russia-Ukraine front, with visions of a Nobel Prize tagged to it. "Because US-Russia negotiations are incomplete, the Trump admin can't make any concrete decisions on India. Washington has put India, a friendly strategic partner, in an indefinite holding pattern—terrible diplomacy on display," Derek Grossman, an Indo-Pacific national security expert said on X, after Washington postponed a visit to New Delhi by a trade team to discuss tariff issues. Putin himself inadvertently exposed White House hypocrisy towards India as he spoke of a 20 percent increase in Russia-US trade since Trump took office, even as the US President is bearing down on New Delhi for buying Russian oil. "Tariffing India won't stop Putin. If Trump really wanted to address Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, maybe punish Putin and give Ukraine the military aid it needs. Everything else is smoke and mirrors," Democrats on the House Foreign Relations committee said over the weekend even as the Republic flock stayed quiet. Former administration officials and even some current insiders are appalled at the Trump White House's "insensitivity" in managing the India relationship, with criticism about lack of expertise about the sub-continent in the President's inner circle. One former official said the White House appears to have jettisoned inter-agency meetings and national security issues are being piloted by individuals close to the President with little domain knowledge or expertise. "It's amateur hour at the White House," the former official said as reports emerged of an administration staffer leaving behind sensitive documents on a hotel printer in Alaska after the Trump-Putin meeting. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays , public holidays , current gold rate and silver price .


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
TMC voices doubt over efficacy of SIR in West Bengal, vows to oppose it
Trinamool Congress on Sunday expressed doubt about the "efficacy" of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls of West Bengal by the Election Commission and vowed to oppose any move by EC to delete names of genuine voters. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency At a press meet in Delhi, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal and other states will be announced in due course. He said the SIR exercise was aimed at removing all shortcomings in the voter list , and it is a matter of grave concern that some parties are spreading misinformation about it, "firing from the Election Commission's shoulder". Coming down heavily on EC, TMC spokesperson Joyprakash Majumdar told reporters, "We also want not a single name of dead voters is retained in electoral rolls. Then how come the 2024 general elections were held based on the same voter list? The EC must clarify if the 2024 elections were then carried by flawed voters list as iterated by our leader Abhishek Banerjee?" by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like New Container Houses Indonesia (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo He said the party has serious "doubts about the efficacy of SIR in West Bengal and the intention of EC". TMC MP Mahua Moitra said in a post on X said, "Hon'ble CEC Sir please don't assume our average IQ is same as that of BJP cadre. Your claims during @ECISVEEEP PC today were ludicrous and laughable". Live Events Supporting the Election Commission, Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari said the EC managed to detect huge number of bogus voters in Bihar and asked why TMC is opposed to SIR if the exercise will happen in West Bengal. Are they (TMC) scared? "Only by implementing SIR, the names of 22 lakh Rohingya/Bangladeshi infiltrators will be removed from the list and free and fair polls will be possible under EC's supervision," the senior BJP leader said.