logo
Here's what a post-Ayatollah Iran could look like if war with Israel leads to regime's fall

Here's what a post-Ayatollah Iran could look like if war with Israel leads to regime's fall

Yahoo10 hours ago

As the Iranian regime reels from sustained Israeli strikes on military and nuclear infrastructure, debate is intensifying over what could come next.
Experts say the end of the Islamic Republic is no longer unthinkable — but warn that what replaces it could either lift the country toward a freer future or plunge it into instability.
Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran and a prominent opposition figure, posted yesterday, "Sources inside Iran say that the regime's command and control structures are collapsing at a rapid pace. Meanwhile, the international community is beginning to realize that the Islamic Republic has no future. Our discussions about a post-Islamic Republic Iran have begun."
"The first thing is revolution is too broad a word," said Behnam Taleblu, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "The better words are evolution and devolution, meaning if you get something better or something worse. Because this is the Middle East, and fundamentally, things can get worse, not better, when you introduce an exogenous shock."
Trump To Make Iran Decision 'Within The Next Two Weeks' Given 'Chance' Of Negotiations, Leavitt Says
Taleblu cautioned that both the Iranian opposition and Western governments have failed to prepare for regime collapse because of a long-standing reluctance to engage with the idea of regime change. "By not being able to articulate the necessary political strategy... we are most unprepared," he said.
Read On The Fox News App
Beni Sabti, an Iran expert at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, sees four scenarios emerging from the current moment — one of which, he warns, is far worse than the others.
"The Iranian people are currently leaderless, low-energy, and disillusioned since the women's protests," Sveti told Fox News Digital. "One scenario is collapse from within, similar to the Soviet Union. A brigade commander inside the Revolutionary Guards, supported by a circle of loyalists, could decide to rebel from within the regime."
Sabti said that after Israel eliminated many Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) generals, Iran's regular army may now be better positioned to rise. "It might even align with disillusioned elements of the revolutionary guards," he said. "Because they know the system and its bureaucracy, insiders could quietly organize something from within. There would be casualties, but it could unfold as a relatively quiet historical event."
Taleblu supports the idea that a regime transition could emerge from within, but notes that Iran has spent decades "coup-proofing."
"It has promoted more based on zeal than capability. So it's less likely that you could have a classic military coup d'état emerge," he said. "That doesn't mean it can't happen, but it would take a significant amount of politicking and maneuvering."
Israel's 'Resounding' Military Campaign Against Iran Could Be Historic Turning Point, Experts Say
The second scenario Sabti outlined is a popular uprising sparked by the release of political prisoners. "There are many political leaders in Iranian prisons," he said. "If some are freed, they could rally the public. They were once part of the regime but tried to shift course and now support relations with the U.S. It would still be a very cold peace with Israel—but not hostile."
Taleblu noted that Iranian society has already undergone a significant shift over the past decade. "Large swaths of the Iranian population—80% is probably a minimum number—hate this regime," he said. "The protests since 2017, especially 'Women, Life, Freedom,' were triggered not just by politics, but by economic, social, even environmental issues."
A third possibility, Sabti said, is the return of exiled leaders. "There's deep romantic nostalgia toward the monarchy," he said. "Maybe in a later phase, if infighting breaks out, people might rally around a symbolic figure—'Come back and be a symbol.' That could strengthen the revolution."
Taleblu acknowledged that figures like Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi could play a role, but not as rulers. "Think of the diaspora as a bridgehead into a new Iran—not the definers of the new Iran," he said. "The people inside Iran should be the ones shaping the next Iran."
The fourth — and worst — scenario, according to Sabti, is that the regime survives. "That's the worst option," he said bluntly.
Everything You Need To Know About Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader Of Iran
Taleblu agreed, warning that survival would bring an even more repressive future. "If the Islamic Republic survives, it will survive in a more radical fashion—more military, less clergy," he said. "There's debate: does it become like Turkey or Pakistan, or does it become even more messianic? The older IRGC are corrupt; the younger ones are messianic."
One of the most contentious questions looming over all these scenarios is the future role of Iran's non-Persian communities, including the Ahwazi, Baloch, Azeris, and Kurds. Aref Al-Kaabi, executive president of the State of Ahwaz, told Fox News Digital in a written statement that without trust-building between these communities and the Persian opposition, change will remain elusive.
"In my opinion, regime change in Iran is possible if the following conditions are met: continued Israeli strikes... support for non-Persian components... international will... and bridges of trust between Arabs, Kurds, Baloch, Azeris, and the Persian opposition," Al-Kaabi said. "If these conditions are met, I believe the regime's fall will only be a matter of days."
He said that in recent days, the IRGC launched widespread arrests in Ahwaz to prevent mobilization. "Most of those arrested are Arabs from Abadan, Bushehr, Sheyban, and Shoaibiya," he said.
Al-Kaabi also criticized the Persian opposition abroad. "They view us—Arabs, Kurds, Azeris, Baloch—as separatists and refuse to work with us. That stubbornness is one of the main reasons the regime is still in power."
Taleblu warned against Western attempts to divide the country. "The way to unite the Iranian population is not to talk about balkanization," he said. "That would be an own goal of moral and strategic proportions."Original article source: Here's what a post-Ayatollah Iran could look like if war with Israel leads to regime's fall

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's move against Iran may draw more criticism from MAGA's anti-interventionists
Trump's move against Iran may draw more criticism from MAGA's anti-interventionists

Associated Press

time4 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Trump's move against Iran may draw more criticism from MAGA's anti-interventionists

President Donald Trump's decision to strike three nuclear sites in Iran will almost assuredly draw more criticism from some of the Republican's supporters, including high-profile backers who had said any such move would run counter to the anti-interventionism he promised to deliver. The lead-up to the strike announced Saturday exposed fissures within Trump's 'Make American Great Again' base as some of that movement's most vocal leaders, with large followings of their own, expressed deep concern about the prospect of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. With the president barred from seeking a third term, what remains unknown is how long-lasting the schism could be for Trump and his current priorities, as well as the overall future of his 'America First' movement. Among the surrogates who spoke out against American involvement were former senior adviser Steve Bannon, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., commentator Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point. Part of their consternation was rooted in Trump's own vocalized antipathy for what he and others have termed the 'forever wars' fomented in previous administrations. As the possibility of military action neared, some of those voices tamped down their rhetoric. According to Trump, Carlson even called to 'apologize.' Here's a look at what some of Trump's biggest advocates had said about U.S. military involvement in Iran: Steve Bannon On Wednesday, Bannon, one of top advisers in Trump's 2016 campaign, told an audience in Washington that bitter feelings over Iraq were a driving force for Trump's first presidential candidacy and the MAGA movement. 'One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said. But the longtime Trump ally, who served a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, went on to suggest that Trump will maintain loyalty from his base no matter what. On Wednesday, Bannon acknowledged that while he and others will argue against military intervention until the end, 'the MAGA movement will back Trump.' Ultimately, Bannon said that Trump would have to make the case to the American people if he wanted to get involved in Iran. 'We don't like it. Maybe we hate it,' Bannon said, predicting what the MAGA response would be. 'But, you know, we'll get on board.' Tucker Carlson The commentator's rhetoric toward Trump was increasingly critical. Carlson, who headlined large rallies with the Republican during the 2024 campaign, earlier this month suggested that the president's posture was breaking his pledge to keep the U.S. out of new foreign entanglements. Trump clapped back at Carlson on social media, calling him 'kooky.' During an event at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said that Carlson had 'called and apologized' for calling him out. Trump said Carlson 'is a nice guy.' Carlson's conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that day laid bare the divides among many Republicans. The two sparred for two hours over a variety of issues, primarily about possible U.S. involvement in Iran. Carlson accused Cruz of placing too much emphasis on protecting Israel in his foreign policy worldview. 'You don't know anything about Iran,' Carlson said to Cruz, after the senator said he didn't know Iran's population or its ethnic composition. 'You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of a government, and you don't know anything about the country.' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene The Georgia Republican, who wore the signature red MAGA cap for Democratic President Joe Biden's State of the Union address in 2024, publicly sided with Carlson, criticizing Trump for deriding 'one of my favorite people.' Saying the former Fox News commentator 'unapologetically believes the same things I do,' Greene wrote on X this past week that those beliefs include that 'foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' 'That's not kooky,' Greene added, using the same word Trump used to describe Carlson. 'That's what millions of Americans voted for. It's what we believe is America First.' Alex Jones The far-right conspiracy theorist and Infowars host posted on social media earlier in the week a side-by-side of Trump's official presidential headshot and an artificial intelligence-generated composite of Trump and former Republican President George W. Bush. Trump and many of his allies have long disparaged Bush for involving the United States in the 'forever wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Writing 'What you voted for' above Trump's image and 'What you got' above the composite, Jones added: 'I hope this is not the case…' Charlie Kirk Kirk said in a Fox News interview at the start of the week that 'this is the moment that President Trump was elected for.' But he had warned of a potential MAGA divide over Iran. Days later, Kirk said that 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported President Trump because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.' He also wrote that 'there is historically little support for America to be actively engaged in yet another offensive war in the Middle East. We must work for and pray for peace.' In Kirk's view, 'The last thing America needs right now is a new war. Our number one desire must be peace, as quickly as possible.' ___ Kinnard can be reached at

Are the Maga isolationists losing influence over Trump's Iran deliberations?
Are the Maga isolationists losing influence over Trump's Iran deliberations?

Yahoo

time7 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Are the Maga isolationists losing influence over Trump's Iran deliberations?

The Trump administration is managing internal dissent over deliberations on whether to launch a strike against Iran, breaking what many supporters saw as a campaign pledge not to involve the US in new conflicts in the Middle East. Trump for the second time this week disregarded testimony by his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that Iran had not been seeking to build a nuclear weapon as of March this year. 'She's wrong,' Trump said, then added: 'My intelligence community is wrong.' In a striking about-face, Gabbard late on Friday said her March testimony had been taken 'out of context' by the media and claimed there was no difference between her opinion and Trump's. 'The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division,' she said in a post on X. 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalise the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Gabbard was nominated to her position in large part because of her scepticism of the US intelligence community and its role in the US involvement in a series of 'forever wars' in the Middle East, especially the Iraq war. Her transition from Democrat to Trump supporter is indicative of the broad coalition that the president has united under his America First movement – and the potential for a schism as the US grows closer to launching an attack on Iran. Steve Bannon, an influential adviser who has been critical of the potential for a US-Iran war, was seen having lunch at the White House with Trump this week, after a series of podcast episodes in which he and other popular Maga pundits criticised what they saw as preparations for a preemptive US strike against Iran. Bannon came to lunch armed with talking points that the Iran strike would be a bad idea and the massive 30,000lb bunker-buster bombs that could target the Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Fordow may not destroy the target. The Guardian previously reported that Trump was not fully convinced the bombs would destroy the target, and has held off authorising strikes as he also awaits the possibility that the threat of US involvement would lead Iran to talks. Others close to the administration have pushed back forcefully in support of a strike on Iran. Republican congressmen including Mitch McConnell and Tom Cotton have lashed out against the isolationist wing of Trump's support; the radio host Mark Levin has personally spoken with Trump in support of stronger backing for Israel; and other top members of the administration – including secretary of state Marco Rubio – are avowed Iran hawks. Others, such as vice-president JD Vance, are public anti-interventionists but have limited their criticism of potential strikes to allow Trump the space to make a decision. But Bannon is believed to have an outsized influence on Trump's decision-making on the war. According to US media, he has warned the president he shouldn't trust Israeli intelligence that the Iranian government was seeking a nuclear weapon imminently. Others in the Maga wing of Trump's support have sought to rebuild ties after sharply criticising the president's positioning on the Israeli strikes against Iran. Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, had called Trump earlier this week in order to apologise after blasting those advising Trump to launch strikes against Iran as 'warmongers'. 'Tucker is a nice guy,' Trump said from the Oval Office on Wednesday. 'He called and apologised the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated that.'

Trump says US has attacked three nuclear sites in Iran
Trump says US has attacked three nuclear sites in Iran

Yahoo

time7 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says US has attacked three nuclear sites in Iran

Donald Trump announced Saturday that the US had completed strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, directly joining Israel 's effort to destroy the country's nuclear program in a risky gambit to weaken a longtime foe amid Tehran's threat of reprisals that could spark a wider regional conflict. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' he added. Related: Israel-Iran war live: Trump says US has attacked nuclear sites in Iran including Fordow The White House alerted television networks that Trump would address the nation at 10pm ET. The decision to directly involve the US comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. US and Israeli officials have said that American stealth bombers and a 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker buster bomb they alone can carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily-fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear program buried deep underground at Fordow. Earlier Saturday, Reuters had reported that B-2 bombers were being moved to the Pacific island of Guam, according to two US officials. A US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, that those bombers were involved in the strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel launched the attacks on Iran saying that it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran has argued that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes. The strikes are a perilous decision for the US as Iran has pledged to retaliate if it joined the Israeli assault, and for Trump personally, having won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. Trump told reporters on Friday that he was not interested in sending ground forces into Iran. He had previously indicated that he would make a final choice over the course of two weeks, a timeline that seemed drawn out as the situation was evolving quickly. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday the US that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them'. And Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared: 'Any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store