A bombshell report by The New York Times has revealed one of the most jaw-dropping geopolitical secrets of 2026: the United States and Israel secretly planned to install former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a man who once called for Israel to be wiped off the map as Iran’s new leader after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The audacious plan collapsed almost instantly, and Ahmadinejad’s whereabouts today remain unknown.
Background: A War Built on More Than Missiles
When the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated military strikes on Iran on February 28, 2026, the public justification was straightforward destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles, dismantle nuclear production facilities, degrade its proxy networks, and weaken the regime.
But according to the New York Times report, there was a far more ambitious objective running alongside the military campaign. Washington and Tel Aviv were not just trying to destroy Iran’s military capacity. They were trying to completely replace its government.
The broader Israeli strategy, as described by the report, envisioned multiple phases: massive airstrikes to decapitate Iran’s leadership, Kurdish uprisings along its borders, coordinated influence operations to ignite political chaos, and ultimately the total collapse of the Islamic Republic followed by the installation of a new figure at the top.
That figure was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And that choice shocked nearly everyone who heard about it.
Who Is Ahmadinejad And Why Was He Chosen?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad served as Iran’s president from 2005 to 2013. During that time, he became one of the most internationally vilified leaders on the planet. He repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction, denied the Holocaust on global stages, and aggressively expanded Iran’s nuclear program triggering crippling international sanctions that sent Iran’s economy into freefall.
He was, in short, exactly the kind of figure the U.S. and Israel spent years opposing. Which made the NYT revelation all the more stunning.
So why him? According to U.S. officials briefed on the plan, Ahmadinejad had one critical quality: he was already inside Iran, he had a base of populist support among lower-income and nationalist Iranians, and crucially he had spent years at war with the existing regime.
The Guardian Council had barred him from running in three consecutive presidential elections. His aides had been arrested. His movements had been restricted to his home in Tehran, effectively placing him under house arrest. In the eyes of the planners, Ahmadinejad was someone the regime feared and therefore someone who might be usable against it.
An associate of Ahmadinejad confirmed to the Times that the Americans believed he had the ability to manage “Iran’s political, social and military situation.” He was seen not as a U.S. ally, but as a calculated tool a familiar face who could provide a veneer of Iranian legitimacy to a transition that was, in reality, engineered from outside.
The Times itself noted that calling him “an unusual choice would be a massive understatement.”
The Day Everything Went Wrong
The plan began to fall apart almost as soon as it began.On the first day of the war, Israeli Air Force jets struck Ahmadinejad’s residence in eastern Tehran. The intention, according to U.S. officials, was not to kill him it was the opposite. The strike was designed to eliminate the Revolutionary Guard personnel who were monitoring him, effectively breaking him out of his enforced confinement.
It was, as The Atlantic described it in March, “a jailbreak operation.But it did not go as planned. Ahmadinejad was injured in the strike. He survived but the experience shook him. Rather than stepping forward as the face of a new Iran, he reportedly grew deeply disillusioned with the entire regime change scheme. He stopped cooperating with U.S. and Israeli officials.
Since then, his whereabouts have been unknown. Neither U.S. officials nor Iranian authorities have been able to confirm where he is or what condition he is in.
What the White House Said
The White House did not directly address Ahmadinejad’s alleged role when contacted by the Times. Instead, spokesperson Anna Kelly released a statement focused on the official military objectives of the operation:
“From the outset, President Trump was clear about his goals for Operation Epic Fury: destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles, dismantle their production facilities, sink their navy, and weaken their proxy.”
The statement made no mention of regime change, leadership replacement, or Ahmadinejad.Yet Trump himself had hinted at something broader just days after the strikes began. Speaking publicly after Khamenei’s killing, Trump said it would be best if “someone from within“ Iran took over the country. At the time, that line was treated as vague commentary. The NYT report now suggests it was anything but vague.
A Plan Modeled on Venezuela
The report draws a direct parallel between the Iran plan and what the Trump administration did in Venezuela, where it helped install Edmundo González after removing Nicolás Maduro from power.
The Iran version was designed along similar lines find a figure with domestic recognition, use military force to clear the path, and then let that figure step in as a stabilizing transitional leader. On paper, the logic was the same. In practice, the Iran operation proved far more chaotic.
Iran is not Venezuela. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is one of the most deeply entrenched military-political institutions in the world. The clerical establishment has decades of ideological infrastructure. And Ahmadinejad, despite his populist appeal, had no organized political base, no reliable military backing, and no clerical legitimacy.
Analysts noted that even in a post-war, post-Khamenei Iran, placing Ahmadinejad in power would have required extraordinary coordination the kind that collapsed the moment he was injured and went silent.
Impact: What This Revelation Means
The disclosure carries enormous implications, both for ongoing Iran policy and for how the world understands the February 2026 war.
It confirms the war was about regime change. The Trump administration maintained publicly that Operation Epic Fury was a targeted military campaign. The NYT report makes clear it was also a political operation, designed to fundamentally restructure who governs Iran.
It reveals the limits of U.S.-Israeli intelligence coordination. A plan that depended on a single individual one who was injured on day one and subsequently disappeared was always fragile. The fact that it collapsed so quickly raises serious questions about the planning process.
It complicates the current Iran situation. With Khamenei dead, Iran’s leadership in flux, and Ahmadinejad missing, there is no clear U.S.-preferred successor in place. The power vacuum in Tehran remains unresolved.
It may fuel anti-American sentiment. Across the Middle East, the revelation that the U.S. and Israel attempted to hand-pick Iran’s next leader even if the plan failed is likely to be seen as a brazen act of imperial overreach.
Conclusion: A Gamble That Did Not Pay Off
History is full of covert regime change plans. Most of them are never made public while they are still unfolding. The U.S.-Israel plan to install Ahmadinejad stands out not just because it failed, but because of how contradictory it was from the beginning a plan to use one of the West’s most recognized adversaries to build a new, supposedly more stable Iran.
The war changed the map of power in Tehran. Khamenei is gone. Iran’s top military and political leadership has been decimated. But the country Washington and Tel Aviv hoped to see emerge from that chaos one with a cooperative, manageable figure at the top has not materialized.
Ahmadinejad, the man at the center of this extraordinary secret, is somewhere unknown. And the question of who leads Iran next remains, for now, unanswered.
FAQs
What is the Strait of Hormuz ceasefire proposal?
During and after the February 2026 U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, international mediators including Oman and Qatar proposed a Strait of Hormuz ceasefire arrangement to prevent Iran from blocking the critical waterway through which roughly 20% of global oil supply passes. The proposal called for Iran to guarantee freedom of navigation in exchange for a halt to further strikes. Negotiations have been ongoing but no formal agreement has been finalized.
Why is the U.S. against Iran?
U.S.-Iran tensions stretch back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Since then, the U.S. has opposed Iran over its nuclear weapons program, its support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, its hostility toward Israel, and its alignment with U.S. adversaries including Russia and China. The designation of Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy for decades.
What is the outcome of Iran-U.S. talks?
As of May 2026, Iran and the United States are engaged in indirect nuclear negotiations mediated through Oman. The talks aim to reach a framework that limits Iran’s nuclear enrichment in exchange for partial sanctions relief. However, the talks are complicated by the ongoing military situation inside Iran, the unresolved leadership crisis following Khamenei’s death, and deep mistrust on both sides. No deal has been announced, and analysts remain cautious about near-term progress.
