Iran after Khamenei

Iran has already announced new interim leadership to replace Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed this weekend, along with several other high-ranking Iranian officials in an Israeli strike.

But who will lead the country in the long term is far from certain in the opening days of what could be a protracted war.

President Donald Trump’s stated objective for the attack on Iran has shifted dramatically in recent days, from the alleged threat of an imminent nuclear attack, to the regime’s support of terrorist groups, to wanting to bring “freedom” to the people of Iran. 

Similarly, Trump’s desired outcome has been evolving on the fly, from full-scale regime change to merely replacing the leadership at the top (as the US recently did in Venezuela) to “peace throughout the Middle East, and indeed, the world,” as he wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

Regime change is difficult to achieve through the kind of bombing campaign the US and Israel are currently pursuing, but Trump and the Pentagon aren’t ruling out sending in ground troops, even as polls show that the Iran incursion is broadly unpopular among Americans.

And Iran’s leadership has threatened “ferocious” retaliation as it fires ballistic missiles at Israel and at US military bases, civilian targets, and energy infrastructure in Gulf states.

To learn more about what to expect next, Today, Explained co-host Noel King spoke with Nahal Toosi, senior foreign affairs correspondent and columnist for Politico.

Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.

Who is in charge in Iran right now?

It’s a very good question. Technically, they’ve said that they’ve appointed an interim council to lead the country for now. It consists of the president, Masoud Pezeshkian — he’s something of a moderate in the Iranian system — and there’s a member of the Guardian Council and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. 

They’re considered hardliners for the most part. But, to be honest, it’s a little bit unclear who is really running the military. There’s a very senior guy named Ali Larijani who has a lot of power, as well. It’s a little vague, especially when the bombs keep raining down.

How did this regime, which, right now, seems to be in complete disarray, survive so many years?

Everything through repression, diplomatic negotiation, balancing its anti-Americanism by appealing to other world powers such as China and Russia. It has used any number of tricks. 

It has had international relations with plenty of countries, if not America, over the years, but, increasingly, it has become isolated, as well. It was getting weaker and weaker, and my sense is that the Trump administration saw a moment of unusual vulnerability and just went for it.

It went for it with the idea, presumably, that if you take out the leaders of the regime, then you get regime change. Is that what is likely to happen here?

The thing about a regime is it’s not just about the people. It’s also about the process of everything from elections to making decisions. It’s about power and how power is allocated within a system. 

The Iranian system was never built around a single cult figure, that type of thing, to where you could just take one person out and everything else would change, and there’d be rainbows, and unicorns, or whatever.

This is a systematic place, and it has been designed to regenerate itself. People step in when other people leave or die. So, what’s different now is that the US and Israel — Israel in particular, because they’re really the ones carrying out the assassinations — have been going after as many figures as they can get, and even ones who aren’t really in power, apparently, like people who might be related to someone in power. 

It depends on how deep they can go to where the whole thing could fall apart. But, then, you still have the armed forces. You still have the paramilitaries. There’s a certain limit. And there’s a certain limit to munitions, for that matter.

Trump said this weekend that he hopes that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the police will work together with Iranian patriots — so, the protesters who’ve been protesting in the streets. 

He’s essentially saying that the military and the police who massacred these protesters earlier this year should now work alongside them. Does it sound likely to you?

Strange times make for strange bedfellows. There’s been reports over the years that there are people in the military, and armed forces, [and] police forces who don’t like the regime, who would prefer to defect. 

A lot of these guys are there collecting a paycheck. At the same time, a lot of these guys killed thousands of Iranian protestors just weeks ago. I’m not saying it can’t happen. Someone might emerge, but I would have a lot of questions.

What does the organized opposition in Iran look like? Is there someone inside of Iran who has the political leverage to take over?

The short answer is no. There’s no real organized opposition inside Iran. There are opposition figures. Many have been thrown in prison, many have just had to flee the country. There are some who are under house arrest, that sort of thing, and some kind of came from the system and tried to change it, and so, they might not have legitimacy in the eyes of many Iranians who really, really want complete regime change. 

There’s just not a real organized group. There are different groups outside Iran who claim to be opposition leaders and organizations to a degree, but many of them have not been inside Iran for a long, long time, and they don’t really have the confidence, and they haven’t really proven themselves as having a ground game inside the country.

Tell me about Reza Pahlavi. It seems like maybe the exiled son of the last shah of Iran might fall into that category.

Yes. He’s been outside the country for nearly 50 years, and, over the decades, he has, every now and then, emerged and tried to make some noise and say, “the US should do something. We should support the people of Iran.”

In recent years, his profile really has risen, but it’s partly because he and his aides have pursued a kind of political polarization approach. They’ve really sided with Republicans. They’ve really been pro-Trump, and they have gone out of their way, especially online, to intimidate and push aside others who are in the opposition. It’s been a pretty divisive approach. 

At the same time, because he has such name recognition inside the country, and because he has managed to raise his profile, it sort of has worked for him so that more and more people, even inside Iran, chant his name. 

Does that mean that he has groups on the ground in the country who can take over institutions and take the armed forces over? I have not seen any evidence of that. 

He says he’s in touch with many Iranian defectors, including from the armed forces, but we really haven’t seen proof of that, and the US officials I speak to do not seem to think he’s a serious player.

What about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? If they take over, is that like a military dictatorship?

Over the years, we have heard reports that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has grown in power and stature inside the system. 

Now, the IRGC is not the normal Iranian military. It reports directly to the supreme leader. It’s very religiously driven, but I’d say there’s a fair amount of interest in the economic side of things for them, because they own large parts of the Iranian economy. 

They are probably in the best position to take power. Even if they put a cleric in front and as a symbol, the real power could lie with the IRGC. And this is a group that could, on the one hand, be very pragmatic, if you say, “look, let’s make money, let’s have peace.”

On the other hand, they could grow even more hardline, and anti-American, and anti-Israel and push even harder with having a nuclear Iran down the line. It’s probably, in many ways, the odds-on favor in terms of seizing the mantle of power in the country.

You well know that the United States has attempted regime change in the Middle East before, and the results were catastrophic. How concerned are you that we are looking down the barrel of another catastrophe here?

If you look at the conflagration in the Middle East right now as a result of these actions, it is deeply concerning. It’s a question of how many countries will get drawn in. 

At some point, the Arab states might feel like they have to attack Iran because it’s been attacking them. This could get very ugly. It could spill across borders. It could destabilize a number of places. Most of all, it could destabilize Iran. 

If you decimate the leadership but, then, nothing rises to take its place, you could have what’s called regime collapse. It could become a chaotic, failed state. 

I do think, though, you have to ask yourself about the really long arc of history. Yes, Afghanistan is a different story. It’s back in the hands of the Taliban, but Iraq, for instance, continues now to hold elections. It’s gone through some very, very tough times, but it is a somewhat functioning democracy. The people there are freer than they were under Saddam Hussein. 

It’s been more than 20 years now, but things do, over time, change. The question is: Is it worth it? Is it worth American lives and American treasure to make this sort of thing happen? I think keeping that nuance in everyone’s mind is really important.