The recent failure of high-stakes negotiations between the US and Iran has sparked concerns among analysts. They believe that key figures within the Iranian government might look to Russia for refuge, aiming to “continue the insurgency and weaken the new regime.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a recent interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” speculated that the downfall of the Iranian government is now a tangible possibility.
Netanyahu emphasized that such a collapse could dismantle Iran’s “foothold” in global terrorism and reduce Hezbollah’s sway in the Middle East. He stated, “If the Iranian regime collapses, the entire scaffolding of the terrorist proxy network that Iran has built will collapse.” However, he also admitted that while the possibility exists, it’s not a guarantee.
In light of the diplomatic deadlock and the instability of the Iranian regime, some experts suggest a potential exit strategy similar to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s, who fled to Russia in 2024. Middle East analyst Syed Golkar pointed out that if conditions worsen, senior Iranian officials might follow in Assad’s footsteps and seek asylum in Russia.
Golkar noted that the destinations would likely depend on rank, with top leaders such as Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf heading to Moscow, while lower-ranking officials might escape to Iraq or Afghanistan, where they have ties. He described how many Iranian officials have already relocated their wealth to “financial networks outside of Iran” and reiterated that for the highest-ranking figures, Russia seems to be the most favored refuge.
This ongoing crisis initially ignited with the death of Ali Khamenei in early 2026, during an operation called Epic Fury. Reports indicate that his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, is now positioned as his successor, yet has been reported as injured and absent from recent negotiations.
Golkar explained that while the regime has mechanisms designed to endure leadership upheavals, the ideological implications of fleeing would weigh heavily on its leaders. He observed that within the regime’s cultural context, abandoning the country during a crisis could signal betrayal. Yet, as internal divisions within the military grow, the attractiveness of the Assad model—seeking Russian protection—becomes more pronounced.
However, Golkar underscored uncertainties surrounding Mojtaba, stating, “He is either dead or in poor condition,” which raises questions about the future of leadership within the regime. If he were to die, there might be no clear successor, putting the continuity of the regime at risk.
In conclusion, Golkar described the Iranian system as one designed not just to govern, but to ensure survival amidst crisis situations, asserting that it can outlast the loss of top leaders or operational institutions.
