The man chosen to clear the air polluted it first
In the opening hours of a war meant to dismantle the Iranian regime, American and Israeli planners placed an extraordinary bet: that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, once the West's most inflammatory adversary, had transformed enough to lead what came after. The operation to free him from house arrest on February 28 failed almost immediately — he was wounded, went into hiding, and the scheme collapsed before it could begin. What endures is a question older than any single operation: how much can a man change, and how much does it matter if those betting on that change are wrong?
- A covert strike on February 28 killed Ahmadinejad's guards, wounded him, and sent him into hiding — unraveling the plan before it had drawn a single breath.
- The choice of a man who once called for Israel's erasure as a post-regime figurehead has left analysts struggling to reconcile the logic of the gamble with its audacity.
- Washington insiders point to a quieter Ahmadinejad who emerged after 2013 — estranged from Khamenei, repeatedly barred from elections, and increasingly critical of the Islamic Republic's direction.
- Mysterious trips to Orbán-linked Hungary in 2024 and 2025 fuel speculation that those visits served as cover for contact with Israeli intelligence, threading an unlikely alliance in plain sight.
- The leak of the plan may itself be a weapon — designed to seed paranoia inside the regime about how deeply foreign intelligence had already penetrated its political core.
- With Ahmadinejad's whereabouts unknown and the scheme in ruins, what remains is a portrait of miscalculation: a high-stakes wager on transformation that the opening moments of war could not survive.
In late February, Israeli forces struck a security compound in Iran with an unusual objective — to free Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from house arrest and position him as the leader of a post-collapse Iranian state. The plan, reported by the New York Times citing official sources, collapsed almost immediately. On February 28, the first day of the war, the strike killed his guards and wounded him. Iranian media briefly reported him dead. He survived, but disappeared — reportedly disillusioned with the scheme that had drawn him into the open.
The choice defies easy logic. Ahmadinejad is the man who, weeks into his presidency in 2005, declared Israel should be wiped off the map. His government organized Holocaust denial exhibitions. He championed Iran's nuclear program with theatrical defiance. By any measure, he was a principal architect of the hostility that eventually led to open warfare. Yet American and Israeli planners came to see him as someone they could work with.
The explanation hinges on transformation. After leaving office in 2013, Ahmadinejad grew estranged from the regime — falling out with Supreme Leader Khamenei, who was killed on the war's opening day. Rejected by vetting bodies in three successive elections, placed under movement restrictions, he reportedly shifted toward Persian nationalism and public criticism of the Islamic Republic. A former White House adviser described a man who had built a social media following and signaled that his inflammatory rhetoric on Israel had been a mistake. Trips to Orbán-linked Hungary in 2024 and 2025 have led some analysts to speculate those visits provided cover for contact with Israeli intelligence.
Deeper questions remain. Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute doubted Ahmadinejad had the popular support to lead post-regime Iran, given the public's rejection of him after the disputed 2009 election. More striking to him was the leak itself — surfacing now, when hopes of toppling the regime seemed nearly spent. Vatanka suggested the disclosure may be designed to sow panic inside the regime: if Ahmadinejad could be reached, who else might have been turned?
His whereabouts remain unknown. The plan collapsed in its opening moments, leaving behind a portrait of desperation — two governments betting on a man they once viewed as an existential threat, hoping his transformation was real, and finding out too late that the gamble had failed.
In late February, Israeli forces struck a security compound in Iran with an unusual objective: to spring a former president from house arrest. The target was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the plan, according to reporting by the New York Times citing official sources, was to position him as the leader of a post-collapse Iranian state once American and Israeli military operations had dismantled the regime. The operation went wrong almost immediately. On February 28, the first day of the war, the strike killed guards protecting Ahmadinejad and wounded him. Iranian media initially reported him dead. He survived but disappeared afterward, reportedly disillusioned with the scheme that had drawn him into the open.
The choice itself defies easy logic. Ahmadinejad is not some moderate waiting in the wings. He is the man who, within weeks of taking office in 2005, declared at a Tehran conference that Israel should be "wiped off the map"—a phrase that would define his presidency and poison relations between Iran and the West for years. His government organized Holocaust denial exhibitions. He championed Iran's nuclear program with theatrical defiance. He was, by any measure, a principal architect of the hostility that eventually led to open warfare. Yet somehow, two decades later, American and Israeli planners saw him as a man they could work with.
The explanation offered by Washington insiders hinges on transformation. After leaving office in 2013, Ahmadinejad grew estranged from the regime he had served. He fell out with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, his former mentor, who was killed on the opening day of the war. When he attempted to reclaim the presidency in 2017, 2021, and 2024, a vetting body rejected him each time. The regime placed restrictions on his movements—restrictions that were not widely publicized. A former White House adviser on Iran described a different man than the firebrand of the 2000s: someone focused on Persian nationalism and Iranian history rather than Islamic revolutionary ideology, someone who had built a sophisticated social media presence and grown publicly critical of the Islamic Republic's trajectory.
There are hints of how this unlikely alliance might have formed. Ahmadinejad traveled to Hungary in 2024 and 2025 to speak at a university connected to Viktor Orbán's far-right government. Some analysts speculate those trips provided cover for contact with Israeli intelligence. The former US official suggested Ahmadinejad had come to recognize that his inflammatory rhetoric on Israel "was not helpful" and signaled willingness to operate differently. Whether that represented genuine ideological shift or pragmatic calculation remains unclear.
But the deeper puzzles persist. Alex Vatanka, head of the Iran programme at the Middle East Institute in Washington, questioned whether Ahmadinejad possessed the popular support to lead a post-regime Iran, particularly given the public's rejection of him after the disputed 2009 election. More intriguing to Vatanka was the timing and the leak itself. Why would this plan surface now, when hopes of toppling the regime appeared nearly exhausted? Who benefited from revealing it? Vatanka suggested the disclosure might be designed to sow panic within the regime about the depth of foreign infiltration—to create paranoia about who else might be compromised. A regime that had been penetrated for years at the level of nuclear and military officials now faced the possibility that a significant political figure had been turned. If Ahmadinejad could be reached, the logic went, who else could be?
Ahmadinejad's current whereabouts remain unknown. The plan to install him as Iran's next leader collapsed in its opening moments. What remains is a portrait of desperation and miscalculation—American and Israeli intelligence betting on a man they once viewed as an existential threat, hoping his claimed transformation was real, and discovering too late that the gamble had failed. The question now is what the regime learns from knowing it was attempted.
Notable Quotes
He is a true populist and even when he was president, he would be focused much more on the nationalistic sides of Iran, the history and the Persian heritage stuff that the Islamic republic had mostly been dismissing.— Former White House adviser on Iran
My first question is who leaked it and why? Are they trying to make the regime panic about the level of infiltration?— Alex Vatanka, Middle East Institute
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Israel, of all actors, choose someone who spent years calling for its destruction?
Because by 2026, Ahmadinejad wasn't that man anymore—or at least, that's what American and Israeli intelligence believed. He'd been sidelined by the regime, rejected repeatedly when he tried to return to power, and he'd grown openly critical of the Islamic Republic's direction.
But that's a huge bet. How could they trust him?
They couldn't, really. That's the whole problem. They were operating on the theory that his estrangement from the regime was genuine, that his focus on Persian nationalism rather than Islamic ideology represented real change. But they had limited time and limited options.
The strike that was supposed to free him—it injured him instead. Why would that matter so much?
Because once he was wounded and went into hiding, he lost faith in the operation. He'd been exposed. The regime now knew he'd been in contact with foreign powers. He became a liability rather than an asset.
Do you think he actually changed, or was he just telling people what they wanted to hear?
That's the question no one can answer. He built a social media presence, spoke about Persian history, criticized the regime's direction. But whether that reflected genuine ideological shift or just political survival instinct—we may never know.
What does it say about American and Israeli intelligence that they chose him?
It says they were desperate. They'd identified him as someone with nationalist appeal, someone the public might accept, someone who'd broken with the regime. But they were also gambling on a man with a track record of inflammatory rhetoric and unpredictability.
And now the regime knows it was infiltrated at that level.
Exactly. The leak—whether intentional or not—signals to the regime that even figures they thought they'd neutralized had been compromised. It creates exactly the kind of paranoia and internal suspicion that destabilizes a government in transition.