As the world grapples with the death of Iran’s supreme leader, and airstrikes continue, the trajectory of the war and most importantly, will Iran survive the fall of its leader, are questions of the hour. Iran’s endurance is worth questioning, as they remain exposed, but it’s also worth asking what exactly the US can achieve. 

If regime change is the goal, killing Khamenei alone itself doesn’t achieve it. US President Trump however, maintains the position that he is still pursuing it. In a brief telephone interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Trump offered, “contradicting visions of how power might be transferred to a new government — or even whether the existing Iranian power structure would run that government or be overthrown.” 

Can Iran be the next Venezuela? 

One of the options he reportedly suggested was a blueprint of what he did in Venezuela, where the top leader was removed but the rest of the government remained intact, willing to work with the US administration. But that possibility in Iran is difficult to imitate. The governance structure is complicated. The Guardian Council for example, specifically exists to guard against political upheavals and keep laws coherent with Islamic principles. The office of the supreme leader was heavily monitored, controlled by such a complex network of institutions, created with the intention of the resilience of the Islamic Republic, rather than one person in power. To put it simply, the whole regime is built deliberately to remain in power, even if the leader falls. 

Iran’s constitution explicitly anticipates sudden leadership loss. It is a system to protect strongmen rather than an authoritarian strongman. Article 111 stipulates that if the supreme leader dies or is unable to perform the duties, authority transfers immediately to an interim council composed of the president. 

There exists no deadline for picking a successor to Khamenei. During war, an interim leadership council can lead the nation for a long period. Iranian national security official, Ali Larijani, who was targeted by US sanctions in January, said on Sunday that an interim council would be running the nation until a successor is chosen. 

On Sunday, Iran formed a provisional leadership council with the President Masoud Pezeshkiam, and Gholam-Hossain Mohseni-Eje’i, the head of judiciary as key members. The regime can also survive the killing of the current President. As we saw in 2024, when Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi died, power shifted quickly. Iran is not in a position to hold elections as it did after Raisi’s death, but the constitution allows for the Vice President to take over. 

The government is also protected by the army, Artesh, and the powerful IRGC which constitutionally exists to serve the regime. Arguably, both are weakened after the strikes, but the IRGC’s main goal has always been a stronghold to fortress the structure of the regime, rather than certain leaders and commanders. Trump and Netanyahu would have to infiltrate the entire system of the IRGC, for the regime to change. Only in the case that the US kills the current assembly members including the President, the top branch of the IRGC and infiltrates the middle, then it could be possible for it to find a form of an Iranian government that would be newly willing to work with the US, like in Venezuela. In other words, US-Israeli precision strikes would really need to obliterate the vast network of leaders and institutions, and intelligence would have to be coordinated in a series of targeted strikes to entirely break down the foundation of the system. 

Three leaders in mind 

Trump told The New York Times that he had “three very good choices” in mind, regarding who could lead Iran. “I won’t be revealing them now. Let’s get the job done first,” he said. Trump also told The Atlantic, that he’s open to talk to Iranian leaders. 

Though he often confidently says things without any substance to it, things which don’t see the light of the day, but as Khamenei’s assassination and his lack of diplomacy indicated, Trump does have deals he wants to strike and covert, pre-planned operations may accompany them. He may have made deals with leaders like the US backed Shah Reza Pahlavi, or infiltrated other candidates in the Iranian regime. What can be gauged from his vision though, is that the US does want a puppet government that it can control. The airstrikes should be viewed with a clear US aim for regime change. 

Till now, the Iranian President and national security officials have only shared hostile language against the US, and vowed to avenge Khamenei’s death. It is hard to imagine a candidate who would be willing to make concessions with Israel, if that is a goal for Trump. But Trump dangled a carrot of lifting sanctions on Iran if the new leadership would pragmatically work with him. 

During the 12-day war, Khamenei went into hiding where he named three possible successors: Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i, the head of the judiciary,  Ali Asghar Hejazi, Khamenei’s chief-of-staff and Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini. It is unlikely that Khamenei’s choice aligns with Trump’s, and it is likely that the Islamic Republic jurists’ picks would align with Khamenei especially after his death. 

Experts on the other hand, predicted lesser known Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri, a hardline cleric critical of the West, and Hashem Hosseini Busheri, another senior cleric who maintains close ties with the IRGC. All such choices are predicted with the consideration that the jurists are the current regime, not the public. 

The concept of picking three leaders is again predicated on the collapse of the entire regime itself, so he has to achieve parts of his first vision to achieve the second. But the unthinkable is not impossible, especially as the Gulf states on the other hand, have also pledged to defend themselves against Iranian attacks and form essentially an anti-Iran coalition.  

Public uprising toppling the government 

Trump mentioned his final hope for Iran: the elite military forces, including officers of the IRGC, turn over their weapons to the Iranian populace. As in the 2000 Serbian Bulldozer Revolution, Trump’s hope hinges on the idea that the security forces of the country would stand back — the same security forces that have murdered citizens in protests. 

Since the death of Khamenei, analysts have warned of the opposite of Trump’s vision: the creation of a “garrison state,” where the military would be more emboldened to dominate social, political and economic life. That sort of military rule in Iran would prove even more ruthless for the public, who already live in a nation where security forces know fewer red lines than they know bloodshed. 

The two-tiered military structure of Iran, along with Basij, the volunteer militia, supporting their efforts to crush protests, makes it harder for the whole system to execute a US-backed coup. So far, the regime has reacted promptly with full support of the IRGC, so on a surface level, Khamenei’s death has not weakened the regime to surrender to public protestors. The public itself remains divided; foreign intervention often gives rise to widespread nationalist sentiments. And foreign intervention in internal politics where the US President already has picks for Iranian leaders, is not exactly the sign of a democratic revolution.

But a long war, with casualties rising in Tehran, could lead to pressure that would lead the public to protest against the regime again, as they did in December last year. The outcome from that, would likely be a civil war, in which case the US or Israel would have to provide assistance to the dissenters against the Iranian local strongmen, their forces, and maybe even their proxies. Is the Pentagon and US prepared to deal with the geopolitical engineering that is required to fulfill an Iranian regime change? 

Ramisa Rob is Geopolitical Insights Editor at The Daily Star. 

Send your articles for Slow Reads to [email protected]. Check out our submission guidelines for details.