Israel, America, and the Ahmadinejad Option

According to reporting by the New York Times, the US and Israel explored a plan to install former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a transitional leader when the Islamic Republic collapsed.

Yes, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

the Holocaust denier, the former president who became internationally notorious for his attacks on Israel, the hardliner who strongly supported Iran's nuclear program, and the man whose government violently suppressed dissent inside Iran.

To describe him as an unlikely Israeli partner would be an understatement.

Now, neither Israel nor the United States has publicly confirmed its details.

But it reveals something extraordinary about how Israel and the United States were thinking of Iran's future.

The plan began with a central assumption.

If the Islamic Republic's leadership collapsed, Iran would immediately need someone from inside the country who possessed name recognition, political experience, and some ability to communicate with the existing state and security apparatus.

The concern was not simply removing the regime.

It was preventing Iran from descending into chaos afterward.

And that distinction matters because destroying a government is one thing.

but building a functioning replacement is much harder.

The United States learned that lesson painfully in Iraq.

When Saddam Hussein's regime fell, Washington dismantled much of the Iraqi state and disbanded the military.

The resulting power vacuum contributed to insurgency, sectarian warfare, and the eventual rise of ISIS.

A reported Ahmadinejad strategy appears to have pursued a different model.

Remove the supreme leadership.

Preserve enough of the Iranian state to prevent collapse.

Install a recognizable insider as a temporary figure.

then move toward a political transition.

This was reportedly compared with the American approach in Venezuela, where the existing system was largely preserved after the removal of its leader, and an insider was expected to cooperate with Washington.

But why Ahmadinejad? During his presidency from 2005 to 2013, he was one of the most hostile figures Israel faced.

He denied or minimized the Holocaust.

He repeatedly attacked Israel's legitimacy.

He backed Iran's nuclear ambitions.

According to reporting by the New York Times, the US and Israel explored a plan to install former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a transitional leader when the Islamic Republic collapsed.

Yes, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

the Holocaust denier, the former president who became internationally notorious for his attacks on Israel, the hardliner who strongly supported Iran's nuclear program, and the man whose government violently suppressed dissent inside Iran.

To describe him as an unlikely Israeli partner would be an understatement.

Now, neither Israel nor the United States has publicly confirmed its details.

But it reveals something extraordinary about how Israel and the United States were thinking of Iran's future.

The plan began with a central assumption.

If the Islamic Republic's leadership collapsed, Iran would immediately need someone from inside the country who possessed name recognition, political experience, and some ability to communicate with the existing state and security apparatus.

The concern was not simply removing the regime.

It was preventing Iran from descending into chaos afterward.

And that distinction matters because destroying a government is one thing.

but building a functioning replacement is much harder.

The United States learned that lesson painfully in Iraq.

When Saddam Hussein's regime fell, Washington dismantled much of the Iraqi state and disbanded the military.

The resulting power vacuum contributed to insurgency, sectarian warfare, and the eventual rise of ISIS.

A reported Ahmadinejad strategy appears to have pursued a different model.

Remove the supreme leadership.

Preserve enough of the Iranian state to prevent collapse.

Install a recognizable insider as a temporary figure.

then move toward a political transition.

This was reportedly compared with the American approach in Venezuela, where the existing system was largely preserved after the removal of its leader, and an insider was expected to cooperate with Washington.

But why Ahmadinejad? During his presidency from 2005 to 2013, he was one of the most hostile figures Israel faced.

He denied or minimized the Holocaust.

He repeatedly attacked Israel's legitimacy.

He backed Iran's nuclear ambitions.