If Iran's Khamenei falls, what would replace him?
By striking targets other than nuclear or ballistic facilities, such as Iran's IRIB broadcaster, expectations have grown that Israel has goals beyond degrading Iranian atomic and missile capabilities and eyes removing supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
But while President Donald Trump has warned "we know" where Khamenei "is hiding", what would follow his removal after over three-and-a-half decades in power is shrouded in uncertainty and risk.
European leaders are haunted by the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO-led intervention in Libya in 2011.
They resulted in the removal of dictators Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi but also in years of bloody mayhem in both countries.
"The biggest mistake today is to seek regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos," French President Emmanuel Macron said at the end of the G7 summit in Canada.
"Does anyone think that what was done in Iraq in 2003... or what was done in Libya the previous decade was a good idea? No!" Macron said.
Analysts say ousting Khamenei and his fellow clerical leaders risks creating a vacuum that could be filled by hardline elements in the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) ideological force or the Iranian military.
"Israel's strikes seem more focused on regime change than non-proliferation," said Nicole Grajewski, fellow at the Carnegie Endowment.
"Of course Israel is targeting ballistic missile and military related facilities but they are also targeting leadership and symbols of the regime like the IRIB," she told AFP.
"If the regime were to fall, the hope would be for a liberal and democratic government.
"However, there is a strong likelihood that other powerful entities like the IRGC could emerge as the replacement," she said.
'No organised alternative'
Among the highest-profile opposition figures is the US-based Reza Pahlavi, the son of ousted shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
He has declared that the Islamic republic is "on the verge of collapse", accusing Khamenei of "hiding underground" like a "frightened rat".
Pahlavi has long called for the restoration of the warm relationship that existed between his late father and Israel, to reverse the Islamic republic's refusal to recognise the existence of Israel.
Monarchists would like such a rapprochement to be termed the "Cyrus Accords" after the ancient Persian king credited with freeing the Jews from Babylon.
But Pahlavi is far from enjoying universal support inside Iran or among exiles.
The nationalism of supporters and his ties with Israel are divisive, especially after he refused to condemn the Israeli air strikes on Iran.
Another major organised group is the People's Mujahedin (MEK), whose leader Maryam Rajavi told the European Parliament on Wednesday: "The people of Iran want the overthrow of this regime."
But the MEK is despised by other opposition factions and regarded with suspicion by some Iranians for its support of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war.
"Part of the challenge in thinking about alternatives to the Islamic Republic in case it collapses is that there is no organised, democratic alternative," said Thomas Juneau, professor at the University of Ottawa.
He said that while Reza Pahlavi is the opposition leader "who has by far the most name recognition both in and out of Iran", his supporters "tend to exaggerate his support inside the country".
"The only alternative -- and this is among the worrying scenarios -- is a coup d'etat by the Revolutionary Guards or changing from a theocracy to a military dictatorship."
'Unpredictable scenario'
Analysts also warn that a potential -- and often overlooked -- factor for future instability could be Iran's complex ethnic make-up.
Large Kurdish, Arab, Baluch and Turkic minorities co-exist alongside the Persian population.
"There will also be an effort to capitalise on ethnic divisions by hostile countries," said Grajewski.
Analysts at the US-based think tank Soufan Center said that with the survival of the Iranian regime now viewed as a "strategic failure", the prospect of an "Iraq 2.0" is looming.
"The post-regime-change scenario remains unpredictable and could trigger regional destabilisation on a scale greater than Iraq, with global ramifications," they said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
28 minutes ago
- Euronews
Iran's UN ambassador: Europe partly to blame for Iran-Israel conflict
"We believe that the minimum thing Europeans can do is to very explicitly condemn Israel and stop their support for Israel," Iran's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva Ali Bahraini said in an interview for Euronews. Bahraini said Europe's reluctance to condemn Israel's aggression and its inability to keep the nuclear deal (JCPOA) afloat have all contributed to the current intensifying hostilities between Iran and Israel, now in their seventh day. "The impunity which has been given to Israel is something which encourages that entity to continue committing new crimes. And this impunity is because of inaction by Europeans. By the United States and the Security Council," Bahraini explained. "We request and we ask Europe to push Israel to stop the aggression. Europe should play its responsibility to put an end to the impunity that Israel is enjoying. Europe should stop helping or assisting Israel financially, militarily, or by intelligence. And Europe should play a strong role in explaining for the United States and for Israel that Iranian nuclear technology is not something which they can destroy." Bahraini said that what he called Europe's "failures" would be presented to the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom – known collectively as the E3 – at talks in Geneva on Friday. They are meeting in Switzerland to discuss Iran's nuclear programme, which is at the heart of the current conflict with Israel. Iran was previously subject to an international nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which saw the country receive sanctions relief in exchange for strict limits on its nuclear activities. During his first term in office, President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the pact in 2018, slamming it as "the worst deal ever negotiated" and slapping new sanctions on Iran. Since then, the other signatories to the deal have scrambled to keep Iran in compliance, but Tehran considers the deal void and has continued with uranium enrichment, which at current levels sits at 60%. That's still technically below the weapons-grade levels of 90%, but still far above the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA. Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is peaceful and purely for civilian purposes. Israel, on the other hand, says Tehran is working towards the construction of a nuclear weapon, which could be used against Israel. Bahraini told Euronews that there is still a window for diplomacy to reach a new nuclear deal, but first, the fighting with Israel has to stop. "For our people and for our country, now the first priority is to stop aggression, to stop attacks," he told Euronews. "I personally cannot imagine there would be a strong probability at the moment for a kind of diplomatic idea or initiative because for us it would be inappropriate if we think or talk at the moment about anything rather than stopping the aggressors," Bahraini pointed out. Parallel to the daily exchanges of missile and drone strikes that have taken place since last Friday, the conflict has also led to an escalating war of words, particularly between Trump and some senior figures in Iran. When asked by reporters on Wednesday whether he intended to bring the US military into the conflict to strike Iran alongside Israel, Trump said, "I may do it, I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do." While Trump appeared to avoid a direct commitment to military action, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu interpreted his comments as a show of support and, in a television address later on Wednesday evening, thanked Trump for "standing by us". Into that mix came Iran's mission to the United Nations, which said no officials from the country would "grovel at the gates of the White House" to reach a nuclear deal with the United States. Bahraini said it was clear to him that "the United States has been complicit to what Israel is doing now." He said Iran would respond very firmly if the United States "crosses the red lines" and said that strikes on the country had not been ruled out. "Our military forces are monitoring the situation. It is their domain to decide how to react," he said. "What can I tell you for sure is that our military forces have a strong dominance on the situation, they have a very precise assessment and calculation about the movements of the United States. And they know where the United States should be attacked," Bahraini warned. Bahraini also said that Iran has not requested any international support and is protecting itself independently. Iran funds a string of militant groups around the region, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, and while they all have different aims and objectives, often the ideology that binds them is their anti-Israel position. When fighting with Israel broke out last week, there were concerns that Iran might demand these groups step up and fight alongside it, in return for the funding and training they have received from Tehran. So far, that has not happened. "At this stage, we are confident that we can defeat Israel independently and we can stop aggression without needing any request of help by anybody," Bahraini explained. "I personally believe that Israel is not an entity with which somebody can negotiate. The thing we have to do is to stop aggression, and we have to show Israel that it is not able to cross the red lines against Iran." "Israel is accustomed to committing crimes, and we think that we have stop it somewhere. We have to tell Israel that there is a red line," he concluded. "War is the continuation of policy with other means," Carl von Clausewitz's haunting observation has echoed through generations of statesmen, soldiers and scholars. It is not a celebration of violence, but a sober reflection on the nature of power, diplomacy and human conflict. Today, this quote is more than an abstract idea; it is a lens through which we must examine the paralysis of international institutions, particularly the United Nations, in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat, which went unabated for so long. I have always believed in the importance and power of international organisations and have worked closely with UN bodies, participating in efforts that sought to uphold human rights, protect civilians, and foster international cooperation. Like many who grew up in the shadow of World War II, I saw the UN as potentially a moral beacon, a structure built on the ashes of the crematoria, forged by a collective promise: Never Again. Nevertheless, here we are. In 2025, the global Jewish population is finally expected to reach its pre-Holocaust size. That should be a cause for hope, for reflection, and for solemn gratitude. Instead, the Jewish State is left to militarily confront a regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, that has never tried to hide its desire to annihilate Israel. From its leaders' genocidal rhetoric to its funding of terrorist proxies and pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran's intentions were never speculative. They are spoken clearly, broadcast openly and carried out violently. Where was the outcry? Where was the moral clarity that once defined the post-war global order? Israel has no aversion to diplomacy, but sometimes diplomacy must follow, not precede, the clear demonstration that Iran cannot and will not achieve its goals. For now, that lesson has to be taught on the battlefield. As enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, 'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…' Israel's actions are not acts of aggression; they are acts of lawful self-defence, taken to prevent another 7 October but on a far greater scale, which itself was the first act in this war of aggression by the Islamic Republic and its proxies. Any institution truly committed to peace and security must recognise this right and support it, not condemn it out of fear or political convenience. The world should see in Israel's determination to destroy the Iranian genocidal threat that diplomacy is a tool, not a virtue in itself. It must be wielded strategically, with eyes open. The hard truth is that diplomacy only works when backed by strength, when the other side believes that refusal to compromise carries unacceptable consequences. Without that, negotiations become little more than performance, a charade designed to delay, deflect, and deceive. This is the lesson from Tehran going back decades. This is also a lesson that institutions like the United Nations have tragically forgotten. Where I once placed deep faith in the UN's moral mission, I now watch with a heavy heart as that promise falters. Working for many years with UN institutions, I witnessed the good they can do, but also the growing tendency toward equivocation, toward moral relativism, toward a fear of action against evil, of taking sides, even when the facts scream for judgment. Time and again, the UN settled for diluted resolutions aimed at appeasing the unappeasable - an approach that prioritised false balance over moral clarity. For too long, there had been no unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian regime's threats against Israel. No unambiguous denunciation of its proxies' murderous attacks on civilians. Silence, or, worse, symmetry, dominates the global discourse, as though a liberal democracy defending itself against an existential threat is no different from a theocratic regime calling for genocide. This silence is not neutral. It is a message, and it will not go unnoticed. This moment is not simply about Israel and Iran. It is about whether the world still remembers the moral foundations upon which institutions like the UN were built. If the UN cannot stand against a regime that openly declares its intention to destroy a member state, and a people, then what, exactly, does it stand for? Clausewitz's maxim is not an endorsement of war. It is a warning: when diplomacy loses credibility, war becomes the tool of last resort. The United Nations must ask itself what role it played in this equation. It failed to take a stand against naked aggression and the constant shrill of incitement to genocide. The Israel-Iran conflict is not just another diplomatic crisis. It is a test of the international system's moral spine. The Iranian regime was never made to understand that it could not succeed in its nuclear and annihilationist ambitions. This is perhaps the UN's last opportunity to take the right side in the history of humanity. If it fails now, it risks irrelevance, or worse, complicity. Israel has taught the international community a stinging lesson: for peace to prevail, it must be defended, not only with words, but with resolve and action. Robert Singer is the chairman of the Center for Jewish Impact and the former CEO of World ORT and the World Jewish Congress.
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
Watch out for flight tracking images showing Chinese cargo planes landing in Iran
Since June 12, and the start of the war between Israel and Iran, many Internet users have been claiming that China is secretly supporting Iran militarily, based on images from Flightradar24, a website that enables live tracking of aircraft in flight. On Monday, a pro-Iranian account on X called SilencedSirs claimed that 'two giant cargo planes flying from China to Iran turned off their tracking signals before entering Iranian airspace". According to SilencedSirs, the proof is two-fold: a video shared in a post viewed over six million times made by a supposed media outlet called Prime Scope, and a screenshot of an aircraft's route tracked by Flightradar24, purporting to show one of the planes in Iranian airspace. Since Friday, many Internet users have also been sharing other Flightradar24 images purporting to show several flights from China entering Iran. Screenshots shared online of the air traffic monitoring site show that various flights operated by Luxembourg cargo airline Cargolux on June 14, 15 and 16 arrived in Iran. 'China sends the first military aid to Iran – unknown cargo,' said a user on X on the night of June 14-15, with a screenshot showing a Cargolux plane supposedly flying over Iran. The same thing happened on June 16, with another flight allegedly showing a 'Chinese cargo plane arriving in Iran' (see below). A video of highly dubious origin However, so far, none of the Flightradar24 screenshots posted online since Friday show any aircraft heading for Iran. In fact, the flight number ' MNB1925 ' visible in the image broadcast in the now viral video corresponds to the Turkish company MNG Airlines, as can be traced from Flightradar24. A search using the name of this flight on the site reveals that no flight under this acronym has crossed Iran since Friday. Only one flight – the one used in the video – passed north of Iran from Turkmenistan. The map used in the video adds to the confusion because it doesn't show borders. The video's origin is also highly dubious: our editors could find no trace online of a media outlet called Prime Scope, which defined itself at the end of the video as "unfiltered and unbiased". Images that do not show these planes in Iran But what about the other images of planes that appear to be flying over Iran? Three flights in particular have been scrutinised by Internet users: flights CLX9735, CLX9736, and CLX9737. Operated by Cargolux, all three departed from China. For each of these flights, screenshots (like the one below) show a plane flying over Iranian territory after passing through Turkmenistan, to the northeast of Iran. But in reality, the visuals used for each of these flights do not show real trajectories, but only 'estimated' trajectories by Flightradar24, which do not correspond to the paths actually taken by the planes. When contacted by the FRANCE 24 team, the Flightradar24 website explained that the aircraft icons that appear to be flying over Iran are in fact only 'estimation data' shown 'when a user clicks on a flight", to give an indication of the direction in which the aircraft should be heading. 'Estimated positions are noted by the black trail colour,' Ian Petchenik, the company's communications director, told our editors. This explanation was also given on the Flightradar24 Facebook page on Sunday, recalling that this type of estimate can last 'up to 240 minutes' after the signal is lost. In a statement published on its website and Facebook page on Sunday, Luxembourg-based Cargolux said that 'none of its flights utilise Iranian airspace". 'Our flight tracking systems provide real-time data, which confirms that no flight entered Iranian airspace. Any claims to the contrary are completely unfounded,' the company also stated, criticising 'incorrect data' from public tools, without naming Flightradar24 directly. Since Friday, an information bulletin from the European Union's Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) recommended airlines 'not to operate' in Iranian airspace (as well as in the airspace of countries in the path of the missiles) and 'at all flight levels'. 'Because the schedule we receive from Cargolux indicates the flight is operating to Luxembourg, we continue to estimate the flight's last known altitude, speed, and heading, which unfortunately puts the aircraft's path through Iran during a period of estimated coverage,' Petchenik explained, who also confirmed that none of these aircraft flew over Iran. China opposed Israeli attacks on Iran These false claims are circulating at a time when China has explicitly condemned Israel's attacks on Iran. "Israel's military actions against Iran have led to a sudden escalation of tensions in the Middle East, which deeply concerns China. We oppose any action that undermines the sovereignty of other countries," said Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday at a meeting in Kazakhstan with five Central Asian countries. On Saturday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had already expressed his dissatisfaction to his Israeli counterpart Gideon Saar, explaining that "the international community is still seeking a political solution to the Iranian nuclear issue". He had previously called Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to express China's support. China is not only a major diplomatic ally for Iran, but also an important economic partner since 90% of Iranian crude oil is exported to China. A stopover in Turkmenistan for 'refuelling' If flight CLX9737's destination was Turkmenistan, what about flights CLX9735 and CLX9736? Both are supposed to be direct flights between China and Luxembourg, but their tracking seemed to stop in the middle of Turkmenistan, according to their flight history available on the Flightradar24 website. When asked about this, Flightradar24 told our team that the partial route was due to a lack of information on the stopovers of Cargolux flights, which regularly stop off in Ashgabat, the capital of Turkmenistan, on the route between China and Luxembourg. 'Cargolux knows that its planes will stop in Ashgabat to refuel, but this stop is not indicated in the available information,' explained Petchenik. Hence the impression, when consulting Flightradar24, that these journeys ended in Turkmenistan, when their destination was in fact Luxembourg. Another air traffic monitoring site, FlightAware, showed that both flights were completed in two stages. On this website, the planes can be traced back some four hours after their stopover in Ashgabat. On both occasions, they were found on the western border of Turkmenistan, en route to Luxembourg, without passing through Iran.
France 24
2 hours ago
- France 24
Trump 'Golden Dome' plan tricky and expensive: experts
Trump announced plans for the space-based system last month, saying it would eventually cost around $175 billion and would be operational by the end of his term in 2029. The planned defence shield's name is a nod to Israel's Iron Dome that has intercepted thousands of short-range rockets since 2011. But the US defence system would intercept much bigger intercontinental threats. The plan comes after a 2022 Department of defence study pointed to advances by China and Russia. Beijing is closing the gap with Washington when it comes to ballistic and hypersonic missile technology, while Moscow is modernising its intercontinental-range missile systems and developing advanced precision strike missiles, it said. Trump has claimed the "Golden Dome" will be "capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world". But analysts are sceptical. "I'm not holding my breath," said Thomas Withington, an associate fellow at the RUSI defence think tank. "The challenges are so significant at this stage that they may simply be unrealistic to surround in the timeframes that the Trump administration envisages." 'Poster child for waste' Thomas Roberts, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the "Golden Dome" plan was based on being able to detect when a long-range missile was fired. A missile's so-called "boost phase" -- which produces a heat blast that lasts one to two minutes and can be observed from space -- is the best time to deploy defences, he said. "If you had an enormous constellation of interceptors in orbit at all times, they could be readily de-orbited -- or systematically removed from orbit -- to strike an intercontinental ballistic missile," he said. But Todd Harrison, from the American Enterprise Institute, said this would require a massive number of satellites. "It takes about 950 interceptors spread out in orbit around the Earth to ensure that at least one is always in range to intercept a missile during its boost phase," he said. But that means that if an adversary launches a salvo of ten missiles, some 9,500 interceptors would be needed to ensure at least ten are within range. "Given that China has about 350 intercontinental ballistic missiles and Russia has 306 -- not including their sub-launched ballistic missiles -- scaling a space-based interceptor system to meet the threat quickly becomes impractical." The non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office estimates that, just to stop "one or two intercontinental ballistic missiles", the United States would need a constellation of satellites costing between $161 billion to $542 billion. The US military could spend billions of dollars on research only for the next administration to nix the project, Harrison warned. "Golden Dome could become the poster child for waste and inefficiency in defence," he said. The plan also calls for developing satellites able to fire lasers at missiles to avoid too much debris on impact. But a European defence contractor said on condition of anonymity that such lasers are "still beyond what even the Americans are capable of doing". "It's just an excellent way to give the US (defence) industry substantial funding so they can increase their technological lead without necessarily aiming for actual operational deployment," the contractor said. 'Global arms race'? Trump's plan is reminiscent of President Ronald Reagan ambition for a Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s, which also sought to place interceptor satellites in space. China and Russia, which both have nuclear weapons, have slammed the latest plan as "deeply destabilising". Nuclear-armed North Korea has called the plan a "very dangerous" threat. Julia Cournoyer, research associate at Chatham House, said the plan was risky as adversaries would likely see it "as an attempt to undermine the logic of nuclear deterrence". "If Washington is perceived to be developing a shield that could one day neutralise a retaliatory nuclear strike, it risks triggering a dangerous global arms race," which would exacerbate rather than reduce risk. Withington said Trump might be hoping to use the plan as leverage for talks with China and Russia. "It may be that the Trump administration is hoping that this would bring both countries to some kind of negotiating table to talk about a reduction of nuclear warhead sizes or to revitalise the arms control agenda," he said.
