The ultimate end of the current war in Iran remains opaque.
One of the explicated goals, however, is regime change, per President Trump announcing the campaign on February 28:
“The hour of your freedom is at hand. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations.
America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach.”
So who could replace the Mullahs?
If history is any guide, it’s not going to be a secular liberal regime with a high affinity for Western human rights and all of that good stuff that comes along with Democracy™.
Exhibit A: Syria, which is now run by an al-Qaeda terrorist who literally had a $10 million bounty on his head from the State Department until his stunning metamorphosis into a valued U.S. ally overnight in December 2024 after the Assad regime collapsed.
Related: John Bolton Vows to Resurrect USAID Post-Trump
Since al-Qaeda took control of Syria with the West’s support, Islamist militias have been busy bees, purging Christians and other religious minorities inside Syria, to virtual deafening silence from the West.
“We Want a Country to Live In — Not a Mass Grave”
— A Demand For Action (@DemandForAction) January 10, 2026
A priest issues a plea from war-torn Aleppo in Syria. The video was shared by the Christian activist Instagram account @AddAlsama – قدّ السما
He states:
“I am speaking to you from Aleppo. Enough lies. Enough killing.
We want a… pic.twitter.com/AqYJWiMqW2
Returning to the current situation in Iran, with that context established, who or what is positioned to replace the Mullahs in the event the current regime falls?
Returning the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, who hasn’t lived in Iran for decades but rather in a leafy suburb of D.C., to the throne is a pipe dream, which President Trump has basically acknowledged himself, as the Shah 2.0’s base of popular support within Iran is dubious at best.
The current strategy to effect revolution on the ground in Iran appears to be the well-tread one of using the CIA to arm and unleash the Kurds in Northern and Western Iran.
Via i24 News (emphasis added):
“An official from the Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan (CPFIK) says Kurdish armed groups based in Iraq have already begun a military offensive against Iranian regime forces.
According to the official, Kurdish fighters affiliated with the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) began taking combat positions inside Iranian territory on Monday, March 2.
“The ground military movements by Kurdish forces against Iran have already started since the midnight of March 2,” the official told i24NEWS.
He said Iranian forces evacuated the border city of Mariwan on March 3 and began establishing defensive positions in and around the area…
According to CNN, the CIA is exploring plans to arm Kurdish forces with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising inside Iran.
Meanwhile, Axios reported that U.S. President Donald Trump spoke with Kurdish leaders in Iraq to discuss the ongoing conflict involving Israel and Iran and possible next steps.
The Wall Street Journal has also reported that the Trump administration is open to supporting armed groups inside Iran willing to challenge the government.”
Despite all the lofty rhetorical flourishes about returning Iran to its secular, liberal, Western-friendly glory days of the Shah era, the far likelier outcome, barring unforeseen developments, is the birthing of a fragmented, failed state in the vein of Libya or Iraq post-invasion.
Maybe they’ll get some of those neat slave markets that cropped up in Libya after Gaddafi got sodomized with a bayonet on video and the country descended into unending chaos.
Related: Columbia U Video Promotes Hillary Clinton’s New Foreign Policy Course
As an outsider looking in — though I’m not particularly interested in telling other countries how to run their affairs — all things being equal, Iran is probably better off sans the fundamentalist theocracy. After all, Persia existed as a magnificent civilization long before the Mohammedan takeover.
The rub is that — and if anyone hasn’t learned this lesson watching the Middle East over the past several decades, I don’t know if they can be helped — what comes next is almost always worse than what was.
