Iran After Khamenei’s Death
The joint efforts by the United States and Israel to identify Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s location and kill him on February 28, 2026, were brilliant. These great intelligence and military successes must be transformed into political success. No one leader or group has enough capability or support to take power in Iran and establish a legitimate and stable political system – and both the U.S. and Israeli governments appear to be fully aware of this. This brilliant success could easily turn into disaster if the U.S. and or Israel pursue certain policies. In this article, I argue that there are policies that have a good likelihood of producing a legitimate and stable democracy in Iran.
Scenario 1. Déjà vu
If the U.S. and Israel stop the military campaign too soon, the remnants of the regime could easily reconstitute the system. It is not clear whether the fundamentalist successors would return to the fundamentalist regime’s policies as soon as they believe it would be safe to do so, or make a fundamental change in their foreign or domestic policies.
Scenario 2. Prolonged Air Campaign to Annihilate the Regime
This would certainly destroy the fundamentalist regime. However, it is not clear what would emerge after that. Regime change would be a positive outcome, unless it metamorphoses into civil war that could lead to refugee floods, terrorism, and instability in the Middle East, which is already both terribly volatile and resource-rich. Because a powerful and legitimate opposition does not exist, the most likely outcome would be a civil war following the collapse of the fundamentalist regime. This would certainly satisfy the security requirements of Israel; however, this scenario is a nightmare for Iran’s neighbors such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Turkey. The U.S. would be pressured to intervene in order to contain the dangers of such consequences from destabilizing American allies.
Scenario 3. Attempt to Install Reza Pahlavi in Power.
The Israeli government has been attempting to install Reza Pahlavi as king, while the Trump administration has wisely kept its distance from this policy option. Pahlavi lacks both popular legitimacy and nationalist legitimacy. Reza Pahlavi’s father, the Shah, was a puppet of the United States, and almost all the major Iranian political parties and organizations consider Reza Pahlavi a puppet of Israel and the United States. Moreover, the Pahlavi monarchy was terribly dictatorial, and, therefore, Iranian democratic forces such as the Iran National Front would absolutely oppose the re-imposition of a monarchy. Iranian democrats do not wish to replace one form of dictatorship with another – they want to establish a democratic and secular republic. The attempt to install the Pahlavi monarchy would certainly lead to a prolonged civil war.
Scenario 4. Military Coup and Provisional Democratic Government
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) is the ideological coercive apparatus of the fundamentalist regime in the same way the SS was the ideological coercive apparatus of the Nazi regime. The primary task of the IRGC is to protest the fundamentalist regime. The regular Armed Forces (Artesh), however, is tasked with protecting Iran’s borders. Many Iranian men who are patriotic, like military careers, and simply wish to protect the borders join the regular armed forces (Army, Army Air, Air Force, and Navy). The fundamentalist regime has imposed IRGC generals at the top of the regular military, hence many rank-and-file members of the regular military are not fundamentalist.
It is highly likely that many officers who strongly oppose the regime would be happy to rescue Iran from chaos, civil war, and disintegration. Because the fundamentalist regime did not trust the officers in the regular armed forces, the regime closely monitored the officers. With the U.S. and Israeli assaults on the fundamentalist apparatuses, the regime’s ability to continue to surveil and capture anti-fundamentalist officers is greatly diminished. This opens the possibility to organize and mobilize elements of the regular armed forces to carry out a coup. It would be best if such a coup were organic and indigenous. However, if the United States could facilitate networking of such elements, it could fill the power vacuum that the current war would give rise to.
This military coup would lack democratic legitimacy. Its primary legitimacy comes from rescuing the country from continued war and consequent chaos. Democratic legitimacy could be gained by announcing that the coup government appoints a Provisional Democratic Government (PDG). As mentioned in my earlier article, there are many highly respected, pro-democracy figures, parties, and organizations in Iran. Such individuals and organizations have a long track record of commitments to democracy, freedom, and human rights. These include the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Nargess Mohammadi and human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh.
The PDG would: release all political prisoners; declare freedom of the press; appoint a cabinet; administer the functions of the government; decide on rules for transitional justice; and hold elections for a constituent assembly under the monitoring of the United Nations and European Union.
What the democratic republicans have that no other Iranian opposition group has, is the trust that they will respect the freedoms and human rights of all groups and Iranians. Many Iranians fear that many opposition groups — such as monarchists, People Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), communists, and ethnic parties – are brutal dictators. This fear is grounded in their histories and current behaviors.
The Trump administration could pursue policies that would reduce the likelihood of chaos and civil war and increase the likelihood of transition to a stable and legitimate political system in Iran. The United States could say that it opposes the anti-democratic groups. Moreover, the U.S. should recognize the PDG. The recognition by the U.S. would provide legitimacy to the new government both internationally and domestically.
Vast numbers of Iranians are celebrating the death of their bloodthirsty tyrant, Ayatollah Khamenei. This euphoria would turn sour if Iran were to degenerate into chaos and civil war or the installation of a puppet dictatorship. Support for an Iran that would be independent and democratic would create an ally and a nation thankful to the United States for having rid it of tyranny. This can only be done with a system that is democratic and legitimate, meaning that the United States should support those with a proven history of commitment to democracy, freedom, human rights, and a republican form of government, where the sovereign would be the Iranian people and not a Supreme Leader or a president for life or a king. Fortunately, such figures and groups exist. Unfortunately, their voices are not heard as much as they truly deserve.
