DUBAI: In the early stages of the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, officials explored a plan to reinstall former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to US sources qouted by the New York Times.
The proposal, developed by the Israeli’s, included a high-risk strike intended to free Ahmadinejad from house arrest in Tehran, as well as the use of Kurdish forces and the bombing of energy infrastructure to force regime collapse.
Ahmadinejad, who served as Iran’s president from 2005 to 2013, built his reputation on deeply adversarial positions toward both Israel and the United States. He strongly supported Iran’s nuclear ambitions and was widely criticized for authoritarian policies and inflammatory rhetoric during his time in office.
Although he later fell out with Iran’s ruling establishment - clashing with senior leaders, facing political restrictions, and eventually being placed under house arrest.
US President Donald Trump had indicated that a successor emerging from within Iran would be the preferred outcome. According to the Times, Trump favoured an outcome similar to the successful removal of Maduro in Venezuela.
However, the choice if Agmadinejad reportedly surprised many within Washington including those within Trump’s circle.
Details surrounding his involvement remain unclear with US officials saying Ahmadinejad had been consulted about the plan, though the extent of his cooperation is not fully known. On the first day of the war, an Israeli airstrike targeted his residence, aiming to eliminate the security forces guarding him and effectively secure his release.
Ahmadinejad survived the attack but was reportedly injured. The strike destroyed a nearby security post while leaving much of the property intact. In the immediate aftermath, Iranian media incorrectly reported that he had been killed, before clarifying that several guards had died and that Ahmadinejad remained alive.
The Ahmadinejad proposal was part of a wider, multi-phase strategy developed by Israeli planners. The approach envisioned an initial military campaign to degrade Iran’s capabilities, followed by internal destabilization efforts designed to weaken the regime.
According to officials familiar with the plan, these combined efforts were intended to trigger a collapse of Iran’s theocratic system, paving the way for an alternative leadership structure.
In practice, much of this strategy did not materialize as expected. While the initial strikes inflicted damage and eliminated key figures, Iran’s government proved more resilient than planners had anticipated. Broader efforts to spark internal unrest or fracture the regime fell short.
Within the United States, some officials had expressed skepticism from the outset, particularly regarding the viability of reinstalling Ahmadinejad. Critics questioned whether he could gain legitimacy among Iranians or unify political factions given his polarizing history.
Ahmadinejad’s own trajectory in recent years has been complex. After leaving office, he became increasingly critical of Iran’s leadership, accusing officials of corruption and mismanagement. He made multiple attempts to return to power, but was repeatedly barred from running by the country’s vetting authorities.
He also engaged more openly with foreign audiences, at times signaling a more pragmatic tone. In past interviews, he praised Trump’s approach to decision-making and called for improved relations between Iran and the United States, further complicating perceptions of his political alignment.
