WhatsappAs the U.S. weighs Reza Pahlavi as a figure for transition, Israeli officials warn missing the chance to topple the ayatollahs could force repeated conflict.
(Jan. 29, 2026 / Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs)
Senior security officials in Jerusalem argue that an unprecedented opportunity exists to replace Iran’s ayatollah regime, and urge United States President Donald Trump to act decisively to seize the moment.
According to them, Israel missed a rare chance to eliminate the Iranian leadership, headed by Ali Khamenei and his son Mojtaba, who is designated to succeed him, during the 12-day “Rising Lion” operation against Iran in June 2025. Israel had the intelligence and operational capability to do so; therefore, this historic opportunity must not be missed again, they say.
“Operation Rising Lion” was a major tactical success, but if the Iranian leadership is not replaced during the current crisis, the strategic existential threat to Israel will continue to loom. Iran is determined to renew its nuclear project and to increase the production of ballistic missiles to destroy Israel.
The implication of not replacing the leadership in Iran is that Israel will be forced to engage in repeated rounds of confrontation with Iran every few months to delay the rehabilitation of the nuclear project and prevent additional ballistic missile production.
A senior political source estimates that Israel cannot allow this scenario to materialize. Therefore, if Trump does not replace the current Iranian leadership, Israel will be forced to eliminate Khamenei itself, whom it views as the head of the snake of the Shi’ite axis.
At the same time, the same source assessed that Israel and the U.S. have reached an understanding not to strike Iran’s oil industry should the current crisis deteriorate into a broad military confrontation.
The oil and gas industry is the central and strategic source of income for the Iranian regime, constituting the financial backbone of the state, the security apparatus and the Revolutionary Guards. The regime’s control over the energy sector enables it to concentrate resources, partially circumvent internal economic pressures, and finance the regional activities of its proxies.
Any damage to oil exports or to revenues from them would severely harm any new Iranian leadership, should one emerge, and would pose a major obstacle to the rehabilitation of the Iranian economy, even if Western economic sanctions on Iran are lifted.
Who could be Iran’s next leader?
Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah of Iran who was overthrown in 1979, said on Jan. 24, 2026, that he seeks to contribute to shaping Iran’s future, but emphasized that he does not aspire to hold a defined governing role.
In an interview with the German television channel ARD, Pahlavi said he wishes to return to Iran to help bring about change. He stated: “I am not running for any position, I am not demanding anything in return, but I know how important my role is as an agent of change here.” He stressed that he wishes to serve the people, noting that this is his promise to the citizens of Iran.”
Pahlavi believes that his role as a supporter of the movement enjoys public legitimacy, adding that “millions of people took to the streets across Iran. Millions chanted my name and called, ‘Pahlavi, come back.’”
Pahlavi emphasized his intention to return to his country as soon as possible and said, “I am working to see how to get there, but I want to be present, even before the collapse of the regime, if that is possible.”
Political sources in Jerusalem say that Trump currently does not have a declared candidate as an “alternative leadership” for Iran, but the central name being examined in contingency plans in Washington is Pahlavi.
Western intelligence sources assess that Trump views him as a symbolic figure who could serve as a focal point for mobilizing international support and for creating a transitional framework, rather than as a de facto ruler.
At the same time, the administration is examining options for a broad civilian “transitional leadership” composed of exiled opposition figures, former Iranian technocrats, and members of the economic and security establishment who might defect from the current regime, but without an agreed-upon charismatic leader.
The prevailing assessment is that Trump is avoiding publicly pointing to a successor in order not to be perceived as appointing a ruler for Iran and to preserve diplomatic flexibility.
Sources in the Republican Party in Washington believe that Trump does not wish to formally appoint a “successor” to the Iranian regime, but rather to leave the leadership question open to maintain political flexibility and to avoid accusations of direct interference in the establishment of a new government in Iran.
However, after U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff met with him over the weekend of Jan. 10-11 at Trump’s direction, Pahlavi is viewed in administration circles and in the U.S. intelligence community as the most convenient figure to serve as a symbolic address, both for international purposes and for the creation of a transitional government in the event of a collapse of the current Iranian regime.
Regarding Israel’s position on alternative leadership in Iran, the political leadership in Israel would be very pleased to see Pahlavi as Iran’s next ruler, but at the same time, there is deep skepticism regarding his ability to govern Iran on the day after the fall of the regime.
The prevailing security assessment in Jerusalem is that Pahlavi is a symbolic asset, but not necessarily a governing solution.
Israeli security officials fear that a scenario of regime collapse without a consolidated leadership could lead to security chaos, the dismantling of security institutions, the risk of weapons proliferation, problems in controlling nuclear facilities, and the strengthening of regional and ethnic power centers.
Therefore, Israel prefers a model of gradual transition, in which senior officers, former regime figures, and technocrats assume key roles, while Pahlavi would serve more as a unifying symbol and less as a de facto ruler.
