Washington/Tehran, Jan 29 (.) As per recent US intelligence assessments, briefed to President Donald Trump, Iran’s leadership is currently in one of its weakest positions in decades, following the US and Israeli strikes on nuclear sites and proxy forces last year, as well as the mass nationwide protests that erupted earlier this month, according to people familiar with the reports.
Trump appeared to lean into that assessment over the weekend, openly floating the idea of leadership change in Tehran, as per anonymous officials.
“It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran,” Trump said on Saturday, echoing earlier comment, signalling his desire for a regime change in the country.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforcing that view on Wednesday, told lawmakers that the Iranian regime “is probably weaker than it has ever been.”
Still, officials are approaching the situation with great caution, and have warned against assuming that this weakness would automatically make Tehran an easy target.
One person familiar with the intelligence noted that Iran has weathered periods of severe pressure before, and removing supreme leader Ali Khamenei would not necessarily bring down the system.
“Even if you remove the ayatollah, his successors are all hardliners too,” the source said, adding that there are no signs Iran’s security services are preparing to turn against the leadership. Rubio echoed that uncertainty, saying “no one knows” who would take over if Khamenei were forced from power.
Despite those caveats, officials say all options remain on the table. One source familiar with the discussions said Trump would prefer a swift, decisive strike that compels Tehran to accept US terms and allows Washington to quickly declare victory.
On Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump appeared to compare a potential operation against Iran with the covert action ordered in Venezuela in December that led to the removal of then-president Nicolás Maduro.
However, US officials have privately acknowledged the comparison only goes so far for Iran, as Tehran is a far more complex and dangerous target, unlike Caracas, Tehran fields multi-layered air defences, ballistic missiles and deadly suicide drones, along with a potent fleet of ageing, though nonetheless strong and combat-tested US- and Russian-made fighter jets.
Even if Iran’s forces are far outmatched technologically by US’ modern state-of-the-art defence capabilities, those systems would complicate any effort to deliver a clean, decisive blow, as Iran’s geography adds another big hurdle, given that unlike Venezuela; a coastal nation, Iran lies deep inland, and is hours from the sea.
There is also no Iranian equivalent to the groundwork Washington laid in Venezuela, as Maduro’s kidnapping was an operation that was a long-time in the making, given that US officials had held quiet discussions with opposition and transitional figures there before acting against Maduro. No such contacts exist with Iranian counterparts, sources said.
Rubio noting the question of Iran to be “more complex” than other recent US interventions, acknowledged that the leadership, which had deeply entrenched itself in the country, even in its weakened state would require a lot of strategic manoeuvring.
“You’re talking about a regime that’s been in place for a very long time,” he told Politico earlier. “That’s going to require a lot of careful thinking if that eventuality ever presents itself.”
Regional constraints further complicate the picture, with key US partners Saudi Arabia and the UAE have ruled out allowing their airspace or territory to be used for an attack on Iran.
Analyst Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute said Iran’s message to its neighbours has likely been blunt: any country that facilitates an attack would itself become a legitimate target, a warning meant to raise the costs of cooperation with Washington.
. . PRS