As U.S. and Israeli forces conduct strikes deep within Iran, targeting high-ranking officials like Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Massoud Pezeshkian, the issue of who might lead Iran if the Islamic Republic were to fall has become urgent. It’s no longer just theory.
In response, Iran has launched a series of missile attacks on U.S. positions throughout the Middle East. Iranian state media suggest that key leaders have been moved to safety, but the direct targeting of political and military figures marks a significant escalation in hostilities.
Despite this heightened tension, experts note that there appears to be no clear successor ready to take the reins of power in Iran.
The true center of power: security forces
Analysts often emphasize the role of Iran’s coercive organizations, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and how they might respond—whether they will unite or fracture. If the IRGC remains intact, a shift towards democracy seems unlikely; instead, the outcome could be a more oppressive regime focused on security. Even with the removal of key leaders, much of the established power structure might endure, resulting in a combination of clerical reorganization and military consolidation.
However, a political opening could arise if parts of the Revolutionary Guards or regular military forces begin to split from the regime under mounting pressure from conflict or civil unrest. Up to now, there has been no solid evidence indicating a widespread breakdown in security.
Reza Pahlavi: prominent but out of touch
One of the notable figures in exile is Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, who has been advocating for democratic reforms since leaving Iran after the 1979 revolution. Recently, he described the U.S. airstrikes as a “humanitarian intervention,” encouraging Iran’s military and security forces to turn against the clerical government. Pahlavi claimed that the Islamic Republic is “collapsing” and urged Iranians to prepare for renewed protests when the time is right.
While he has a following among certain diaspora communities, gauging his popularity and support within Iran is challenging, especially considering he hasn’t lived in the country for over 40 years. Many Iranians still have mixed feelings about the monarchy’s history.
Analysts suggest that while Pahlavi’s visibility during protests is notable, it doesn’t easily translate into the political organization necessary to effectively govern a nation of around 90 million people.
Maryam Rajavi and the NCRI: structured yet contentious
On another front, Mariam Rajavi, the leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has proposed a framework for an interim government dedicated to transferring sovereignty to the Iranian populace and establishing a democratic state based on her long-standing 10-point plan. In her messaging, she has encouraged “military patriots” to join the Iranian people and urged regime forces to surrender their arms. Rajavi has also denounced both clerical rule and what she calls “monarchical fascism,” referencing those who support the returning royal family.
Her framework includes proposals to dismantle the Revolutionary Guards, separate church and state, abolish the death penalty, promote gender equality, and conduct elections for a constituent assembly. The NCRI positions itself as a viable alternative for governance.
However, the group’s close ties to the Mujahideen Khalq (MEK) have stirred controversy, leading analysts to question its overall support within Iran, especially among the younger populace.
No obvious successor in sight
In light of these bold declarations from opposition figures, experts caution that the leadership of Iran is likely to form within military and security circles rather than through exiled press events. Four decades of repression have eroded many domestic political avenues. No widely acknowledged civilian leader has emerged in Iran with the ability to transcend sectarian divides.
If a sudden leadership vacuum were to occur, conflicts would probably arise among security elites rather than a struggle for power among defectors. Currently, it’s evident that while there are competing visions for Iran’s future, an agreed-upon successor is lacking. The evolution of Iran’s political landscape will depend more on possible fractures in the regime’s core power than on external proclamations.
