A man whose fierce anti-Israel rhetoric now appears as a possible alternative for Iran's future
NYT claims US and Israel explored Ahmadinejad as post-war Iranian leader option, but an alleged rescue attempt left him wounded and the initiative reportedly failed. Analysts question why two nations would approach someone long associated with extreme anti-Israel rhetoric and Holocaust denial, calling the narrative contradictory.
- The New York Times reported US and Israel considered Ahmadinejad as a potential post-war Iranian leader
- An alleged rescue operation to free him from house arrest left him wounded; his whereabouts remain unknown
- Ahmadinejad served as Iranian president from 2005 to 2013 and has been blocked from running again since leaving office
- Multiple American and Israeli security experts expressed deep skepticism about the plan's credibility and feasibility
The New York Times reported that US and Israel considered former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential post-war leader, though experts express deep skepticism about the plan's credibility and feasibility.
For years, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's voice carried the weight of defiance. The former Iranian president, who governed from 2005 to 2013, became synonymous with a particular kind of rhetoric—one that questioned the Holocaust, called Israel a fabricated state, and defended Iran's nuclear ambitions despite international sanctions. Israeli officials cited his words as proof that Iran posed an existential threat. His declarations seemed to crystallize everything the West feared about Tehran's intentions.
Then, in May 2026, The New York Times reported something that upended that narrative entirely. According to the newspaper, the United States and Israel had, in their planning for a post-war Iran, actually considered Ahmadinejad as a possible future leader of the country. The proposal, the Times claimed, was meant to exploit a rupture between Ahmadinejad and Iran's security apparatus—to position him as an alternative to the current regime. But the plan allegedly collapsed when a rescue operation designed to free him from house arrest went wrong, leaving him wounded. His whereabouts remain unknown.
The revelation landed like a contradiction too large to ignore. Why would two nations that had spent decades treating Ahmadinejad as a symbol of Iranian extremism suddenly consider him a useful tool? The skepticism came swiftly and from multiple directions. American analysts questioned whether a serious operational plan had ever existed. Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israel's Mossad, had once called Ahmadinejad "the greatest gift Iran gave to Israel"—a man whose aggressive rhetoric and Holocaust denial had actually strengthened Israel's case that Iran was dangerous. How could such a figure suddenly become an asset?
To understand why Ahmadinejad's name might have surfaced at all requires looking at the peculiar position he occupied by 2026. After leaving office, he had clashed repeatedly with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Guardian Council blocked his attempts to run for president again. He was isolated from power, yet not entirely powerless. He remained known throughout Iran—a former president with government experience and connections to parts of the population. He understood how the Islamic Republic functioned from the inside. And crucially, he was no longer seen as simply an extension of Khamenei's will.
Some foreign policy analysts suggested that this combination of qualities—fame, insider knowledge, and distance from the supreme leader—could make him useful in a scenario of deep instability. Not as an ally, but as someone capable of widening fractures within Iran's elite. Yet even this logic faced withering criticism from Israeli security experts. Danny Citrinowicz of Israel's Institute for National Security Studies argued that any attempt to install Ahmadinejad would reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Iranian politics. The Revolutionary Guard would never support him. He had no real power base. He could only rise if the entire existing structure of Iranian authority collapsed—something that American and Israeli strikes had not accomplished.
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad himself had been quietly reconstructing his image. In recent years, he posted messages in English on social media, congratulated the University of Michigan football team, quoted the rapper Tupac Shakur, and praised Donald Trump for fighting political corruption. Whether this represented genuine moderation or strategic repositioning remained unclear. Raz Zimmt, an Iran specialist at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, described Ahmadinejad as someone who "frequently adopted contradictory and unexpected positions"—a combination of populism and opportunism rather than fixed ideology.
The Times stood by its reporting, citing conversations with American, Israeli, and Iranian officials. But the weight of expert opinion suggested the narrative was, at best, incomplete. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute called it "fanciful." Max Abrahms, a counterterrorism researcher, urged "great skepticism" given the volume of disinformation surrounding the war. Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council doubted that Washington and Tel Aviv had developed any consistent plan around Ahmadinejad, even if his name had been mentioned in passing.
What remained unresolved was the deeper question the story had surfaced: Who was Ahmadinejad, really? A firebrand ideologue, or a pragmatist willing to shift alliances based on circumstance? A man whose anti-Israel rhetoric had genuinely reflected his beliefs, or someone whose public positions masked a more flexible political calculus? The contradiction—a figure long identified with fierce anti-Western stance now appearing, in some accounts, as a possible alternative for Iran's future—suggested that the answer might be more complicated than either his supporters or his critics had admitted. No concrete evidence linked him to Israel or the United States. Yet the mere possibility that such a link had been explored raised questions about Ahmadinejad's true nature that may never be fully answered.
Notable Quotes
Ahmadinejad frequently adopted contradictory and unexpected positions—a combination of populism and opportunism— Raz Zimmt, Iran specialist, Israeli Institute for National Security Studies
Any attempt to install Ahmadinejad would reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Iranian politics and how power actually functions— Danny Citrinowicz, Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (paraphrased)
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would the Times even report this if the plan was so obviously implausible?
Because the fact that it was considered—even briefly, even by lower-level officials—tells you something about how Washington and Tel Aviv were thinking about Iran's future. Sometimes the implausible reveals the actual assumptions people are working with.
But everyone says it's absurd. Israeli security experts, American analysts—they all say it doesn't make sense.
Right. And that's the interesting part. The skepticism itself is revealing. It suggests that whoever greenlit this idea may have been operating in what one analyst called "a world of fantasy"—disconnected from how Iranian power actually works.
So Ahmadinejad was just a name that came up? Not a serious candidate?
Possibly. He had certain qualities that made him theoretically useful—he was known, he had experience, he was estranged from Khamenei. But whether that translated into an actual operational plan or just exploratory conversation is unclear.
The image reconstruction he's been doing on social media—is that relevant?
It suggests he was thinking about his future, about how he was perceived. Whether that's opportunism or genuine evolution is impossible to say. But it does fit a pattern of someone willing to reinvent himself depending on circumstances.
What does this say about how much we actually understand about Iranian politics?
That we may understand less than we think. Ahmadinejad spent decades as a symbol of one thing, and now that symbol is being questioned. It raises the possibility that symbols can be more complicated than they appear—or that we've been reading them wrong all along.