Several months ago, a team of colleagues uncovered a striking and unconventional strategy. The individual Israel and the United States had identified as a potential leader for Iran following a conflict was none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former president widely regarded as one of the most hardline and adversarial figures toward both nations during his tenure from 2005 to 2013. Known for his virulent anti-Israel stance, denial of the Holocaust, and role in advancing Iran’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad’s selection as a post-war leader seemed paradoxical.
The scheme ultimately unraveled, but renewed investigative efforts have shed light on its intricate details and the rationale behind the U.S. and Israeli assessment of its viability. This account explores the extraordinary narrative of Israel’s years-long operation to cultivate a figure once considered an implacable foe.
An Unlikely Candidate for Tehran
The specifics of Israel’s plan to elevate Ahmadinejad to power resemble a clandestine thriller. A secret meeting at a Budapest university required him to evade his own security team. An Israeli airstrike aimed to free him from house arrest, followed by a hurried escape in a Mossad vehicle to a concealed safe house. Additional peculiar touches, including speculative cosmetic procedures, added to the narrative.
The audacity of choosing Ahmadinejad—a man who had overseen Iran’s nuclear expansion and a brutal suppression of dissent—was staggering. Could this figure truly stabilize a war-torn nation?
The plan never advanced beyond its inception. Ahmadinejad grew skeptical of Israel’s intentions and departed the safe house under mysterious circumstances. However, the investigation revealed that his evolving relationship with Iran’s regime, marked by shifting rhetoric and public appearances, may have signaled potential collaboration. After leaving office, his stance softened: he reduced anti-Israel rhetoric, engaged with social media, and openly criticized the government’s brutality and corruption.
From Hardliner to Pragmatist?
U.S. and Israeli officials sought a leader capable of pragmatic diplomacy. Ahmadinejad, despite his history, demonstrated willingness to pivot ideologically for political resurgence. His post-presidency criticisms of Iran’s leadership and professed admiration for President Trump—whom he contacted directly—hinted at a potential alignment with Western interests, including hypothetical recognition of Israel under the Abraham Accords.
A Miscalculated Gamble
Israel activated the regime-change plan amid the early stages of conflict, assuming Iran’s government would collapse. Yet, the regime proved resilient, and Ahmadinejad’s withdrawal from the scheme—rooted in unclear motivations—exposed critical flaws. Julian Barnes, an investigator, noted the operation’s irony: a rare intelligence breakthrough undone by operational missteps.
Iranian intelligence eventually traced Ahmadinejad’s communications with Israel. He resurfaced publicly at Ayatollah Khamenei’s funeral in February, appearing guarded and subdued, surrounded by security forces. His abrupt reappearance underscored the fragile nature of the failed endeavor.