Cart
0
Trump Faces Uncertain Path in Post-Khamenei Iran
After the killing of Ali Khamenei, President Donald Trump faces a widening war in Iran with no clear successor in place, unclear long-term strategy, and growing domestic and international questions about the conflict’s objectives.
Trump standing with Iran and US flag. Recreated picture by Pop Smoke medias
President Donald Trump entered the joint U.S-Israel operation that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei without a clear successor in mind, a stark contrast to the administration’s earlier action in Venezuela, where officials had identified a potential leadership transition following the removal of former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
In the run-up to the strike that killed Khamenei and dozens of senior Iranian officials, CIA officers worked to establish contacts within elements of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence operations. The intelligence gathered helped the United States and Israel successfully target Iran’s supreme leader and other top officials. However, the administration had little confidence about who could realistically assume power in Tehran or whether any emerging leadership could cooperate with Washington.
Gear Spotlight: Relevant to This Story
M18 Enamel Pin – For When It’s Time to Bounce
$9.99
$4.99
SICKNESS FOR THE THICCNESS TEE
$29.99
$14.99
As the war expands, defining and achieving success appears far more complex, prolonged and costly in American lives than the Venezuela operation.
“There’s no coordinated or breakaway group inside the regime that the Americans view as a new government they would welcome, or any real organized opposition,” one of the people familiar with the internal discussions said.
In one of several phone interviews since the Iran operation began, Trump told ABC News that several figures he had considered as possible successors had been killed in the missile strikes.
“It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead,” Trump said. “Second or third place is dead.”
A third person close to the president’s national security team described internal deliberations over Iran’s political future as “all over the map.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the operation in a post-publication statement, saying, “As President Trump said today, this was our last, best chance to strike and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime run by terrorists.” She argued that Iran had been increasing missile production each month and, if left unchecked, would have shielded itself with ballistic missiles while advancing a nuclear weapon, arming proxies and posing a direct threat to the United States.
Trump has publicly expressed interest in replicating what he views as a successful approach in Venezuela, telling The New York Times, “What we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario.” That operation led to a working relationship with Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez.
But the political structures of the two countries differ sharply. Venezuela’s government descended into authoritarianism over roughly 25 years, with power concentrated among a small group of leaders overseeing ministries and personal power bases. U.S. officials had cultivated inroads with members of that leadership circle described by critics as mafia-like making a rapid decapitation strike and political arrangement more feasible.
Iran, by contrast, is a theocracy entrenched over nearly five decades. The supreme leader presided over a complex system blending clerical authority, elected offices and military leadership, designed to replace vacated positions and maintain continuity.
On Monday, Trump publicly justified the Iran strikes by asserting that Iranian missiles were nearing the capability to threaten the U.S. homeland a claim that remains unproven and disputed. His remarks followed a weekend of varying descriptions of post-Khamenei Iran, ranging from suggestions of “freedom for the people of Iran” to statements about eliminating imminent threats to Americans.
At the same time, Trump reiterated a set of military objectives: destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, annihilating its navy and ensuring it can never obtain a nuclear weapon.
Absent an identifiable friendly leadership alternative, hopes that the Iranian public might overthrow the regime appear unlikely in the near term. According to one person familiar with intelligence assessments, Iran’s security and paramilitary forces remain largely intact, making it probable that authorities could suppress protests with force.
“We still don’t know if this war ends with some semblance of this regime intact or not, and regime collapse and regime change are two different things,” said Amos Hochstein, a former senior adviser to President Joe Biden. “Regime collapse could lead to chaos and to multiple centers of power competing with each other. I personally don’t know where this is going. The problem is, I don’t think anybody does. And without troops on the ground, it’s very difficult to create regime change from the air.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged during a late January hearing that “no one knows who would take over” if Iran’s supreme leader were removed. While he said the administration would aim for a “similar transition” to Venezuela, he noted that Iran’s situation would be “more complex.”
A new CNN poll released Monday found that 59 percent of Americans oppose the Iran operation and 60 percent believe Trump lacks a clear plan for handling the conflict.
Criticism has not been limited to Democrats. In a post on X, Leavitt reiterated the administration’s military objectives after conservative blogger Matt Walsh wrote that the administration’s “messaging on this thing is, to put it mildly, confused.”
International partners are also seeking clarity. A Western diplomat, granted anonymity to describe private discussions, said Washington has yet to outline a long-term plan for Iran or the broader region.
For now, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have focused publicly on military goals within an undefined timeline.
“Whatever the time is, it’s okay. Whatever it takes,” Trump said Monday during an unrelated Medal of Honor ceremony, listing four objectives: destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, annihilating its navy, preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon and halting its support for armed groups abroad.
The effort to clarify U.S. goals follows a weekend of varying timelines from the president, ranging from “two to three days” to “four to five weeks.”
“If you listened to Secretary Hegseth this morning and then to the president, it’s clear they have not decided on their objectives and I think they’re going to have to do that very soon,” said Christopher Hill, who served as U.S. ambassador to Iraq and four other countries under Republican and Democratic administrations. “We’ll know in a few days if there’s any anti-government movement in Iran, but it’s not looking like that’s a likely outcome. So they may want to ease up on the talk about regime change.”
Statements from Trump and senior officials on Monday suggest a possible shift away from regime change toward a narrower military focus.
Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill that the operation’s purpose is “to destroy that missile capability,” arguing that Iran has been building conventional weapons as a shield for its nuclear ambitions. He said Iran is producing, by some estimates, more than 100 missiles per month and possesses thousands of one-way attack drones.
“Imagine a year from now or a year and a half from now, the capabilities they would have to inflict damage on us. It’s an unacceptable risk,” Rubio said.
Editor’s Note:
This article is based on interviews with current and former U.S. officials, diplomatic sources and individuals familiar with internal deliberations who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters. Developments surrounding the conflict in Iran and the U.S. administration’s strategy remain fluid and may evolve as additional information becomes available.
