chaos and internal division might be preferable to unified resistance
In the long and tangled history of great powers attempting to shape the internal politics of adversaries, a new chapter may have been written — or imagined. The New York Times has reported that Israel, with American support, explored reinstalling former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad following military operations against Iran, a claim that strains strategic logic and has drawn sharp skepticism from international observers. Whether true or fabricated, the allegation illuminates the profound uncertainty that surrounds Western policy toward Iran in a moment of escalation. The question of who governs Tehran has rarely felt more contested — or more consequential.
- The New York Times dropped a claim that could reshape how the world understands Western intentions in the Middle East: Israel and the US allegedly sought to return Ahmadinejad — an avowed enemy of both — to power in Iran after a military strike.
- The strategic contradiction is glaring: why would Israel install a figure famous for calling for its destruction, unless the calculation was that internal Iranian fracture mattered more than ideological alignment?
- Brazilian media outlets — from O Globo to Estadão — pushed back hard, with some questioning whether Ahmadinejad might himself be a Western asset, and others calling the plan a potential catastrophic miscalculation.
- The credibility of the Times reporting remains unresolved, as covert regime-change operations are nearly impossible to independently verify, and those involved have every incentive to deny.
- The story is already doing damage regardless of its accuracy — it has injected deep suspicion into the conversation about what Washington and Jerusalem actually want from a post-strike Iran.
The New York Times reported this week that Israel, backed by the United States, had explored returning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power in Iran following military operations against the country. The claim landed immediately as a provocation — both strategically and journalistically — triggering waves of skepticism from Brazilian media and international observers alike.
Ahmadinejad, Iran's president from 2005 to 2013, is best remembered for his inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric and defiance on the nuclear question. The alleged strategy, as the Times framed it, would have used him as a transitional figure — radical enough to satisfy Iran's hardliners, yet potentially more susceptible to Western influence than the current regime. The theory rested on the idea that his return might fracture Iran's power structure from within.
The logic, however, struck many as inverted. Brazilian outlets were unsparing: O Globo questioned why Israel would want a radical in power; Estadão called it a potential catastrophic miscalculation; VEJA floated the provocative suggestion that Ahmadinejad might himself be a CIA asset; and Diário do Centro do Mundo simply asked whether the Times had gotten the story right at all.
Verification remains elusive by nature. Covert regime-change planning, if it occurred, would leave few traceable threads, and those involved would have every reason to deny it. What the reporting does reveal — whether accurate or not — is the depth of uncertainty gripping Western policymakers about Iran's future after military escalation: who might lead it, whether its system can be destabilized, and whether any transition would actually serve Israeli or American interests.
The allegation has already altered the conversation. If true, it exposes a willingness in Washington and Jerusalem to embrace formerly unthinkable figures in pursuit of short-term strategic gain. If false or distorted, it raises equally serious questions about how such claims travel from intelligence circles to the front pages of major newspapers. Either way, the story has become part of the reality it purports to describe.
The New York Times reported this week that Israel, with American backing, had explored the possibility of returning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power in Iran following a military strike against the country. The claim, which surfaced in the newspaper's coverage of recent Middle Eastern tensions, immediately triggered a cascade of skepticism across Brazilian media outlets and international observers.
Ahmadinejad, who served as Iran's president from 2005 to 2013, is remembered in the West primarily for his inflammatory rhetoric toward Israel and his defiant posture on Iran's nuclear program. His return to power would represent a dramatic reversal of Iran's current political trajectory under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's chosen successors. The alleged strategy, according to the Times reporting, would have positioned Ahmadinejad as a transitional figure—someone radical enough to satisfy hardliners within Iran's system, yet potentially more malleable to Western interests than the current regime.
The timing of the revelation raises immediate questions about the logic of such a move. If Israel and the United States had just conducted military operations against Iran, installing a figure known for his anti-Western and particularly anti-Israeli positions would seem counterintuitive. Yet the geopolitical calculus in the Middle East has never followed straightforward logic. The theory, as reported, appears to rest on the assumption that Ahmadinejad's return might fracture Iran's power structure, create internal divisions, and ultimately weaken the country's unified response to external pressure.
Brazilian news organizations responded with particular skepticism. O Globo questioned whether the United States and Israel genuinely wanted a radical figure in power. VEJA raised the possibility that Ahmadinejad might himself be a CIA asset, a suggestion that underscores how murky such operations become when viewed through the lens of Cold War-era espionage tactics. Estadão noted that reinstalling an avowed antisemite to lead Iran would represent a catastrophic miscalculation for Israel, undermining any strategic gain from military action. The Diário do Centro do Mundo simply asked: did the Times get this right?
The credibility question matters enormously. The New York Times has substantial sourcing capabilities and a track record of breaking significant national security stories, but claims about covert regime-change operations are inherently difficult to verify independently. Sources involved in such planning, if it occurred, would have every reason to remain anonymous or to deny involvement entirely. The newspaper's reporting methodology—whether based on official leaks, intelligence community sources, or reconstructed documents—remains unclear from the initial coverage.
What emerges from the reporting is a portrait of Western policymakers grappling with how to manage Iran after military escalation. The alleged consideration of Ahmadinejad suggests a willingness to work with figures previously deemed unacceptable, provided they might serve immediate strategic interests. It also hints at deep uncertainty about what comes next in Iran—whether the current system can be destabilized, whether a successor regime could be influenced, and whether any transition would actually benefit Israeli or American interests.
The story points toward a larger reckoning about Western strategy in the Middle East. If the Times reporting is accurate, it reveals a level of desperation or miscalculation in how Washington and Jerusalem approach Iran's future. If it is inaccurate or incomplete, it raises questions about how such claims circulate through intelligence channels and reach major newspapers. Either way, the allegation has already shaped the conversation about what happens next.
Notable Quotes
Reinstalling an avowed antisemite to lead Iran would represent a catastrophic miscalculation for Israel— Estadão analysis
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Israel and the US want Ahmadinejad back in power? He's hostile to both countries.
That's the puzzle everyone's asking. The theory seems to be that chaos and internal division in Iran might be preferable to unified resistance. A radical figure might also lack the institutional support the current regime has built.
But wouldn't that backfire? Putting an antisemite in charge of Iran after striking the country?
Exactly what the Brazilian outlets are saying. It would look like a catastrophic own goal—unless the assumption was that Ahmadinejad would be controllable in ways the current leadership isn't.
Do we know if this actually happened, or is it just speculation from the Times?
That's the real question. The sourcing isn't entirely clear. It could be based on leaked documents, intelligence briefings, or reconstructed conversations. But verifying covert operations is nearly impossible.
What does it tell us about how the US and Israel think about Iran?
It suggests they're uncertain, maybe even desperate. They're considering options that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago. It's a sign of how little control they actually have over outcomes.