Possible scenarios for Iran once war with US, Israel ends

Possible Scenarios for Iran Once War with US, Israel Ends

The outcome of the US-Israeli conflict with Iran remains uncertain, and the future of the Islamic Republic after hostilities conclude is equally unpredictable. Analysts have speculated on potential developments, highlighting the complex interplay between international pressure and internal dynamics. On February 28, the US and Israel intensified their military campaign against Iran, prompting citizens in Tehran to gather on rooftops and celebrate. This display of public support, despite the war’s contentious legal standing and Iran’s long-standing animosity toward its adversaries, underscores the deep divisions within the country.

Many Iranians appear willing to tolerate civilian casualties and infrastructure damage if it leads to the collapse of their perceived authoritarian regime. While the US has expressed conflicting goals, the prospect of regime change persists. President Donald Trump directly addressed protesters in January, urging them to rise against the government. “When we are done, take over your government,” he told The New York Times. “This will be your only chance for generations.” Hours later, reports surfaced that Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, had been killed in a strike, yet the regime continued functioning under Ali Larijani’s leadership.

Regime Change: A Pragmatic Shift

Experts suggest the US might seek to replace Iran’s leadership with a more aligned figure, mirroring its approach in Venezuela. Trump’s strategy there involved removing Nicolas Maduro and negotiating a deal with his deputy, Delcy Rodriguez. “What we did in Venezuela is the perfect scenario,” he remarked, implying a similar path for Iran. Cornelius Adebahr of the German Council on Foreign Relations echoed this, stating Iran could replace its top leader with someone closer to US interests, though the political system would remain intact.

“It’s the same scenario as in Venezuela,” Adebahr said. “You swap out the top leadership and far fewer changes than people had hoped for.”

Continuity with Adjustment

Alternatively, the war might lead to a more moderate shift, with Iran’s Assembly of Experts selecting a pragmatic successor to Khamenei. This would prioritize domestic recovery, focusing on economic rebuilding and governance reforms, while softening foreign policy toward the US. Burcu Ozcelik of RUSI, a British security think tank, noted this could “unlock economic relief” and ease the burdens on millions of Iranians. “A more stable period of recovery could follow,” she added.

Another possibility is the consolidation of hardline power, with the regime adopting an even stricter ideological stance. Julian Borger of The Guardian warned of this trajectory, envisioning a government that becomes “isolated, paranoid, and nuclear-armed,” akin to North Korea. “Surviving leaders may conclude that a bomb is the only guarantee of survival,” he wrote, predicting increased repression against dissent.

Two weeks before the conflict began, 250,000 Iranians and other activists gathered in Munich to support Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah. Pahlavi, who has long advocated for reform, claimed he would not want to lead a war-torn country. His presence in the streets highlights the ongoing hope for a less rigid political direction, even as the current regime grapples with the war’s aftermath.