America and Alternative Leadership Scenarios; Trump: ‘Iran’s Fate is in the Hands of Its People’

Donald Trump, in recent remarks about the future of the Islamic Republic, discussed leadership options following the killing of Ali Khamenei, a scenario inspired by Venezuela, and the prospect of continuing military operations for the next four or five weeks, with regional and global consequences.

U.S. President Donald Trump, in an interview with the New York Times, emphasized that the overthrow of the Islamic Republic depends on the Iranian people themselves and expressed interest in applying an approach similar to the Venezuelan scenario for power transition in Iran.

He stated in this regard: “It depends on them whether they do it or not. They have been talking about it for years, so now it is clear they will have the opportunity.”

Trump announced that he has “three very good options” in mind for Iran’s future leadership, though he did not disclose the names of these individuals and emphasized that he will clarify this matter after the conclusion of military operations.

He also labeled the model of power transition in Venezuela as a “flawless scenario” and pointed out that in that country the previous leader was removed and a large part of the government remained in place, but is now ready to cooperate with America.

Trump’s proposed strategy, which uses Venezuela’s experience as a model, reflects America’s effort to find a middle ground between complete overthrow of the government and maintaining relative stability in the country. He stated that if Iran’s new leadership demonstrates itself as a “cooperative partner,” America is prepared to reduce sanctions.

This position has encountered varying views among American conservatives and regional allies; some analysts believe that despite this approach, deep political changes in Iran are not easily achievable and the current structure of the Islamic Republic possesses considerable resistance.

Trump said that America and its allies are prepared, if necessary, to continue attacks on Iranian territory for four to five weeks and described these operations as sustainable. This position, with emphasis on Pentagon’s readiness and continuation of military operations, indicates that Washington has not yet outlined a near-term exit strategy.

The Iran-America war, which has been accompanied by air and missile strikes from both sides, carries widespread consequences for the Middle East:

• Following the clashes, countries in the region including Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE have witnessed increased insecurity. Missile and drone attacks by the Islamic Republic on some of these countries have been reported, though independent international confirmation of all of them is pending.
• Turkey has closed three of its border crossings with Iran, a move that could affect trade exchange and travel, and increase economic pressures.

This crisis has also intensified global concerns in the energy market, as increased volatility in the Persian Gulf could affect oil prices and endanger the security of energy transport routes.

While changes in Iran’s leadership have occurred in the shadow of war, an interim leadership council has been formed comprising several senior officials including Masoud Pezeshkian, President, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejehi, Head of the Judiciary, and Alireza Arafi, member of the Guardian Council’s clerical bench. This temporary structure reflects a vacuum and uncertainty in the official hierarchy following Ali Khamenei’s death and could lead to internal political rivalries.

This war, beyond its direct military effects, could lead to changes in the region’s geopolitical map:

• Key regional players such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar may redefine their roles in security equations, even if they are not directly involved in the conflict.
• Analysts have warned that military confrontation could strain America’s relations with other economic and political partners such as China and the European Union, particularly in the areas of energy and regional security.

Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Iran demonstrate that the U.S. government is eager to continue military operations for several weeks and, at the same time, is also considering alternative leadership scenarios and the possibility of negotiations after the war. An approach that combines military pressure, encouragement of domestic uprising, and diplomatic possibilities.

This strategy, while targeting potential Iranian leaders, leaves the definite outcome in the path of Iran’s internal political change shrouded in uncertainty, and reactions both inside and outside the country remain diverse and complex.