In the lead-up to potential US and Israeli strikes in early 2025, intelligence assessments from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) projected that even if Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were to be killed during such operations, his most probable successors would be hardline figures from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This critical evaluation, revealed by two intelligence sources, underscored the complex and often unpredictable dynamics of power within the Islamic Republic.
These assessments, meticulously developed over recent weeks, broadly explored the potential landscape of Iran following a significant US intervention. Analysts focused on the extent to which a military operation might trigger a regime change within the Islamic Republic, a frequently stated objective for Washington in early 2025. The intelligence community aimed to understand the stability and future trajectory of Iran under various scenarios, particularly in the aftermath of a major leadership vacuum.
The IRGC stands as an elite military and paramilitary force, established to safeguard Iran’s Shia Muslim clerical regime from internal and external threats. Its extensive influence permeates nearly every aspect of Iranian society, including politics, economics, and military affairs, making its leadership a decisive factor in any future power transition.
Intelligence before potential intervention
The intelligence reports, compiled over a two-week period, delved into various scenarios concerning Iran’s leadership. They aimed to predict how the country’s political and military apparatus would respond to an external shock, such as the death of its Supreme Leader. These analyses were crucial for US policymakers contemplating assertive actions against Tehran.
While comprehensive, the agency’s intelligence reports did not offer definitive conclusions regarding any single post-intervention scenario. Sources familiar with the intelligence, who spoke anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the information, indicated that the complexity of Iran’s internal power structures prevented any singular, undisputed outcome. The potential for a smooth, hardline transition was deemed high, complicating strategic planning for Washington.
Washington’s declared aim for regime change
President Donald Trump has consistently signaled Washington’s interest in a regime change in Iran for several weeks in early 2025. His rhetoric has often highlighted the US desire to see a different leadership in Tehran, though specific details on who might lead the country post-change have remained unarticulated by the administration.
In a video address delivered recently, President Trump characterized Tehran as a “terrorist regime” and encouraged the Iranian populace to assert their power. He explicitly stated that US military actions would prepare the ground for a popular revolt. This public call aimed to galvanize internal opposition while framing external military intervention as a catalyst for internal reform.
Deliberations and diplomatic efforts in 2025
The recent joint US and Israeli strike followed several weeks of intensive deliberation within the American government regarding the feasibility and implications of military action against Iran. These discussions were spurred by violent protests that erupted across Iran in December, which highlighted growing internal dissent and instability within the country.
Amidst these internal debates, American officials had engaged in efforts to finalize a nuclear agreement with Tehran. The objective was to avert a more direct military intervention, signaling a diplomatic track preferred by some factions within the administration. Such an agreement was seen as a potential off-ramp from escalating tensions.
However, these crucial negotiations, held in Geneva, ultimately failed to yield a breakthrough. The inability to secure a nuclear deal effectively removed a key diplomatic alternative, leaving military options more prominent on the table. The breakdown of talks underscored the deep mistrust and intractable differences between the two nations.
The impasse at the negotiating table further intensified the internal discussions within Washington, pushing the administration closer to considering military action. The lack of a diplomatic resolution meant that the US strategy pivoted towards more forceful measures, directly impacting the decisions leading to the subsequent strikes.
Secretary Rubio’s confidential briefings
During a confidential briefing to key congressional leaders, collectively known as the Group of Eight, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that an American military operation against Iran was likely to proceed. This briefing occurred recently, underscoring the advanced stage of planning and the serious consideration given to military action.
Rubio, however, also noted that President Trump retained the prerogative to alter his decision, particularly if the nuclear negotiations had shown any signs of success. This nuance highlighted the administration’s fluctuating posture and the last-minute potential for diplomatic outcomes to influence military plans, even as an operation seemed imminent.
On the eve of the operation, Rubio again informed the Group of Eight that the attack on Iran was anticipated to commence within hours. Despite the seeming certainty, he reiterated that Trump could still reverse course, a detail confirmed by two sources familiar with the sensitive communications. This continuous communication kept key lawmakers informed of the rapidly evolving situation.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ role
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) serves as a foundational pillar for the clerical establishment in Iran, acting as both a military deterrent and a significant political force. Its primary mission is to protect the Islamic Revolution’s principles and prevent any internal or external threats to the Shia Muslim regime. The IRGC operates extensive military, intelligence, and economic networks, giving it unparalleled influence throughout the country. Its leadership, deeply ideological and loyal to the Supreme Leader, is uniquely positioned to manage any transition of power, especially one involving a figurehead as central as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The CIA’s assessment accurately recognized the IRGC’s entrenched power and its capacity to ensure a continuity of hardline rule, even in the event of Khamenei’s demise, thereby preserving the current system without necessarily sparking a wider, unpredictable power struggle.
Broader regional implications of the assessment
Understanding the potential for an IRGC-led succession carries significant weight for regional stability and US foreign policy in the Middle East. Such an outcome suggests a continuation of existing Iranian policies, including support for proxy groups and advancements in its missile program, rather than a shift towards moderation.
This intelligence directly influenced strategic planning for Washington and its allies, shaping expectations about the aftermath of any military intervention. The prospect of hardline continuity underscored the limitations of external pressure to fundamentally alter Iran’s political landscape in the short term.
Unanswered questions on Iran’s future
Despite thorough intelligence gathering and analysis, the future trajectory of Iran remains shrouded in inherent uncertainties. The complex interplay of internal political factions, public sentiment, and regional dynamics makes precise predictions challenging, even with detailed assessments.
