Briefly on the main point
According to Reuters, several senior U.S. officials consider it unlikely that a rapid and peaceful regime replacement would occur after the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This assessment is based on internal intelligence findings and the political reality that has taken shape in Iran over more than four decades.
Why the U.S. is skeptical
The argument is simple: the theocratic system established in 1979 has deep institutional safeguards. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and clientelist networks give a substantial advantage to those who seek to preserve the status quo. U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity note that the opposition is weakened and fragmented, and potential leaders backed from abroad may not have the social or institutional base to take control of the country.
"In the near term, radical figures within the IRGC or radical clerics are more likely to fill a power vacuum than moderate opponents."
— Reuters interlocutor, U.S. administration official (speaking on condition of anonymity)
What the intelligence assessments say
According to two official sources, CIA assessments prepared for the White House outlined several scenarios: from control by radicals to the transfer of power to other senior clerics. At the same time, there is no single consensus within U.S. policy circles on how this would affect Iran's nuclear program or missile capabilities.
"Assessments differ, and there is no consensus on the matter. We are preparing for several possible outcomes."
— Reuters interlocutor, U.S. intelligence official (speaking on condition of anonymity)
Implications for diplomacy and security
If the U.S. believes a rapid transformation will not occur, that changes priorities: instead of hoping for a quick regime change, the focus shifts to deterrence, monitoring nuclear activity, and coordinating with allies. For negotiations with the U.S. on the nuclear program and regional stability, this means greater caution and planning for potential escalation.
Why this matters for Ukraine
Ukraine has an interest in a stable international order and strong allies. American caution regarding Iran could mean the U.S. will devote more attention to deterrence and defense cooperation with partners, rather than experiments with rapid regime reshuffling. For us, this is a signal to concentrate on two tasks: preserving the international coalition of support and strengthening our own defensive resilience.
Summary
U.S. intelligence assessments point to radicalization or the preservation of existing elites as more likely scenarios than a rapid democratic transformation. This does not rule out changes across the Iranian political scene, but suggests the geopolitical consequences will be long-lasting and will require partners to adopt careful strategies. The question remains open: will international actors be able to turn these assessments into stabilizing decisions that protect the interests of Ukraine and the region?
