Regime Change in Iran: Leadership Succession and America’s Troubled History of Interference

The Islamic Republic of Iran faces a pivotal moment as the question of succession to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, who has held the position since 1989, looms large. At 86 years old, Khamenei’s eventual departure—whether through natural causes or “unforeseen circumstances”—will mark a critical juncture in Iran’s history. The Supreme Leader wields ultimate authority over the country’s political, religious, and military institutions, making the selection of his successor a matter of profound significance, both domestically and internationally. Recent reports suggest that the Assembly of Experts, the body tasked with choosing the next Supreme Leader, has identified three senior clerics as potential successors, though their identities remain confidential. Based on available information, Mojtaba Khamenei, Alireza Arafi, and Hashem Hosseini Bushehri are among the most frequently mentioned candidates. This article provides an in-depth analysis of these potential leaders, their qualifications, and the implications of their ascension. Additionally, it examines the United States’ long and often disastrous history of orchestrating regime changes in other countries, highlighting the risks and consequences of external interference in sovereign nations, particularly in the context of Iran’s sensitive political landscape.

Potential Successors to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

The succession of the Supreme Leader is a closely guarded process, governed by the Iranian constitution, which requires the Assembly of Experts to select a candidate who meets stringent criteria, including deep religious scholarship, loyalty to the principles of the Islamic Revolution, and political acumen. The Assembly, an 88-member body of clerics elected for eight-year terms, holds the authority to appoint, supervise, and, if necessary, dismiss the Supreme Leader. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, this process has been used only once, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was chosen to succeed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Recent reports indicate that the Assembly has selected three potential successors to Khamenei, but their names remain confidential, reflecting the secretive nature of the process. Despite this, credible sources have identified Mojtaba Khamenei, Alireza Arafi, and Hashem Hosseini Bushehri as likely candidates, with Mojtaba and Arafi being the most prominently discussed.

Author’s Note: Nobody really knows which one of these people are still alive.

Mojtaba Khamenei

Mojtaba Khamenei, born in 1969, is the second son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a mid-ranking cleric (hojatoleslam) who has been increasingly referred to as an ayatollah since 2022 by some Iranian media outlets. He has emerged as a leading candidate for succession due to his familial ties and significant influence within Iran’s theocratic system. Mojtaba is believed to wield considerable power behind the scenes, particularly in policy-making circles, and has close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a powerful military and political institution in Iran. His reported suspension of advanced jurisprudence classes suggests a shift toward preparing for a leadership role, and his appearance in official state media further underscores his rising profile.

Mojtaba’s candidacy is bolstered by his proximity to the current Supreme Leader and his alignment with the regime’s core ideology, which emphasizes Islamic supremacy, resistance to foreign influence, and anti-Western sentiment. His ascension would likely ensure continuity in Iran’s hardline policies, including its nuclear ambitions and support for regional proxies like Hezbollah. However, his potential leadership faces significant challenges. Mojtaba lacks the demonstrated theological status required for the role of Supreme Leader, as he is not a senior Shia scholar. The Assembly of Experts must elect the Supreme Leader from among such scholars, and Mojtaba’s relatively modest religious credentials could be a barrier. Additionally, there are unconfirmed reports that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei opposes his son’s nomination, as dynastic succession could provoke conflict within Iran’s political and religious leadership, drawing parallels to the monarchy the Islamic Republic overthrew in 1979. The Middle East Institute has noted that appointing Mojtaba could cause significant internal strife, given the regime’s rejection of hereditary rule (Why Khamenei Unlikely to Pick Son).

The death of President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash in May 2024 has further complicated the succession landscape. Raisi was widely seen as a protege and potential successor to Khamenei, and his demise has elevated Mojtaba’s prospects, alongside other candidates like Ayatollah Sadiq Larijani. However, the lack of consensus within the Assembly and the potential for opposition to dynastic rule make Mojtaba’s ascension uncertain. An X post from November 16, 2024, by @visegrad24 claimed that sources close to Tehran’s regime suggested Mojtaba had been elected as the next Supreme Leader, but this was later denied by the pro-government Tehran Times in January 2025 (visegrad24 Post).

Alireza Arafi

Alireza Arafi, born in 1959 in Meybod, Iran, is a prominent cleric with extensive roles in Iran’s religious and political establishment. He serves as the second deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts, a member of the Guardian Council, and the Friday prayer leader of Qom, Iran’s religious heartland. Arafi’s influence in the Qom seminary, a center of Shia Islamic learning, positions him as a strong contender for the Supreme Leader role. He was appointed head of Iran’s seminaries in 2020 by Ayatollah Khamenei, a role that underscores his religious credentials and proximity to the current leadership. Arafi’s father, Mohammad Ibrahim al-Arafi, was a close friend of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, further enhancing his revolutionary pedigree.

Arafi’s extensive institutional roles and connections within the clerical elite make him a candidate who could balance the interests of various factions within the regime. His leadership would likely emphasize religious scholarship and maintain the theocratic structure of the Islamic Republic. However, Arafi lacks widespread name recognition among the Iranian public, which could limit his ability to consolidate power in a post-Khamenei Iran. His appointment to the Assembly of Experts in 2015, despite not participating in the required written test, was facilitated by discretionary approval from the Supreme Leader, highlighting his favored status within the regime (Iranian President’s Death).

Hashem Hosseini Bushehri

Hashem Hosseini Bushehri, born in 1956 in Bordkhun, Bushehr province, is another influential cleric and a potential candidate for Supreme Leader. He serves as the first deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts and head of the Qom Seminary Society, roles that place him at the heart of Iran’s religious establishment. Bushehri’s close relationship with Ayatollah Khamenei and his leadership in Qom enhance his candidacy, particularly if the regime seeks to balance the influence of the Khamenei family with broader clerical support. His educational background in the Qom Hawza and his family’s clerical heritage—his father was a cleric and his mother the daughter of a Shia scholar—further bolster his credentials.

Bushehri’s administrative experience and deep ties to the religious establishment make him a viable candidate, though he is considered a less likely choice compared to Mojtaba Khamenei and Alireza Arafi. His role as a temporary Friday prayer leader in Qom and his representation of Bushehr province in the Assembly of Experts since 2007 demonstrate his long-standing involvement in Iran’s theocratic system. However, the lack of specific mentions in recent reports about the three chosen successors suggests that Bushehri may be a secondary option, potentially included to diversify the candidate pool and mitigate concerns about dynastic succession.

Other Potential Candidates

Other figures, such as Ayatollah Sadiq Larijani, have been mentioned as potential successors, particularly in the context of Ebrahim Raisi’s death. Larijani, a former head of Iran’s judiciary, is a senior cleric with significant political influence, but his candidacy is less prominent than Mojtaba or Arafi. Ali Khomeini and Hassan Khomeini, grandsons of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, are considered unlikely due to their exclusion from the upper echelons of power. Former president Hassan Rouhani has been disqualified from key roles, diminishing his prospects. The focus remains on the three primary candidates, with Mojtaba and Arafi being the most frequently cited.

The selection of a new Supreme Leader will have profound implications for Iran’s domestic and foreign policies. Mojtaba Khamenei’s leadership could reinforce the regime’s hardline stance, given his ties to the IRGC, while Alireza Arafi’s ascension might emphasize religious legitimacy and institutional continuity. Hashem Hosseini Bushehri could serve as a compromise candidate, balancing familial and clerical interests. The secretive nature of the process, combined with the potential for internal power struggles and external pressures, makes the outcome uncertain. The Assembly of Experts, dominated by hardliners, is likely to prioritize candidates who uphold the principles of the Islamic Revolution, but the IRGC’s influence could also play a significant role in shaping the final decision (Iranian President’s Death).

America’s History of Regime Changes: A Legacy of Failure and Instability

The prospect of regime change in Iran, whether through internal succession or external interference, cannot be fully understood without examining the United States’ long and troubled history of orchestrating regime changes in other countries. Throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries, the U.S. has engaged in numerous interventions, often led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to replace foreign governments perceived as threats to American strategic or economic interests. These actions, frequently justified as efforts to combat communism or promote democracy, have consistently led to unintended consequences, including political instability, human rights abuses, and anti-American sentiment. The following sections provide an examination of key U.S.-led regime changes, focusing on their motivations, methods, and long-term outcomes, with particular emphasis on the 1953 coup in Iran and its relevance to the current context.

Iran (1953): Operation Ajax and the Roots of Resentment

In 1953, the CIA, in collaboration with British intelligence, orchestrated Operation Ajax, a coup d’état that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, challenging the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) and threatening Western economic dominance. The U.S. and UK, fearing the loss of oil resources and the potential spread of Soviet influence, supported the coup to restore Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, to power. The operation involved bribing military officers, staging protests, and disseminating propaganda to destabilize Mossadegh’s government.

The immediate outcome was the Shah’s consolidation of power as an authoritarian ruler, heavily reliant on U.S. support. His regime, marked by repression and corruption, alienated large segments of the Iranian population, particularly the clergy and the working class. The 1953 coup sowed deep resentment, culminating in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the Shah and established the current theocratic regime under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The revolution was partly a reaction to decades of U.S. interference, and the resulting anti-American sentiment continues to shape Iran’s foreign policy. The CIA formally admitted its role in the coup in 2013, confirming long-held suspicions among Iranians (CIA Admits Role).

The 1953 coup in Iran serves as a cautionary tale for any potential U.S. involvement in Iran’s current leadership transition. External interference could exacerbate internal tensions, fuel anti-American sentiment, and destabilize the region, as it did nearly seven decades ago.

Guatemala (1954): Operation PBSuccess and a Legacy of Violence

In 1954, the CIA executed Operation PBSuccess, a coup that overthrew Guatemala’s democratically elected President, Jacobo Árbenz. Árbenz had implemented land reforms that redistributed property from large landowners, including the United Fruit Company, a powerful U.S. corporation with close ties to the Eisenhower administration. The U.S., viewing Árbenz’s policies as a communist threat, organized a military coup led by Carlos Castillo Armas, using psychological warfare, propaganda, and a small force of mercenaries.

The coup succeeded in installing Castillo Armas, but it ushered in decades of military rule and repression. The subsequent regimes, backed by the U.S., engaged in widespread human rights abuses, targeting political opponents, indigenous communities, and labor activists. The coup triggered a 36-year civil war that claimed over 200,000 lives, with the CIA implicated in supporting death squads and covering up casualties. Guatemala’s political and social fabric was devastated, with lasting poverty and instability (Guatemala 1954).

This intervention highlights the long-term consequences of prioritizing corporate interests over democratic governance, a pattern that could inform U.S. policy toward Iran if economic or strategic interests are placed above regional stability.

Chile (1973): The Pinochet Coup and Human Rights Abuses

In 1973, the U.S. supported a military coup that overthrew Chile’s socialist President, Salvador Allende, and installed General Augusto Pinochet. Allende’s nationalization of industries, including copper mines owned by U.S. companies, and his alignment with leftist ideologies prompted the Nixon administration to destabilize his government. The CIA engaged in economic sabotage, funded opposition groups, and provided covert support to the Chilean military. Declassified documents later confirmed the U.S. role in the coup (Chile 1973).

Pinochet’s regime, which lasted until 1990, was notorious for its brutal repression, including the torture, disappearance, and murder of thousands of political opponents. Operation Condor, a U.S.-backed campaign of political repression across Latin America, further amplified human rights abuses. Chile’s economy, while initially stabilized under neoliberal policies, saw increased inequality, and the country’s democratic institutions were severely undermined. The U.S. intervention in Chile fueled anti-American sentiment across Latin America and remains a stark example of the human cost of regime change (Operation Condor).

The Chilean case underscores the risks of supporting authoritarian regimes to achieve short-term strategic goals, a lesson relevant to any potential U.S. involvement in Iran’s succession process.

Indonesia (1965–1966): The Anti-Communist Purge and Mass Killings

In 1965–1966, the U.S. supported an anti-communist purge in Indonesia that led to the overthrow of President Sukarno and the rise of General Suharto. The CIA provided lists of approximately 5,000 suspected communist officials to the Indonesian military, facilitating a genocide that killed between 500,000 and 1 million people. The U.S. also supplied communications equipment and logistical support, viewing the purge as a means to counter Soviet influence in Southeast Asia. Declassified documents from 2017 confirmed the U.S. role in encouraging and facilitating the mass killings (Indonesia 1965).

Suharto’s regime, which ruled until 1998, implemented neoliberal economic policies that favored Western interests but exacerbated inequality and corruption. The mass killings left deep social scars, and Indonesia’s transition to democracy was delayed for decades. The U.S. intervention in Indonesia illustrates the moral and political costs of supporting violent regime changes, a consideration that should weigh heavily in any discussion of U.S. policy toward Iran.

Iraq (2003): Invasion and Long-Term Chaos

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, justified by false claims of weapons of mass destruction and alleged links to al-Qaeda, resulted in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Authorized by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the Iraq Resolution of 2002, the invasion involved a massive military campaign that toppled Hussein’s regime within weeks. However, the subsequent occupation led to widespread insurgency, sectarian violence, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The rise of terrorist groups like ISIS, fueled by the power vacuum and U.S. policies such as de-Baathification, further destabilized the region.

The U.S. withdrew combat troops in 2011 but returned in 2014 to combat ISIS, with the combat mission officially ending in December 2021. Iraq remains politically fragile, with ongoing sectarian tensions and dependence on U.S. military support. The invasion’s economic cost to the U.S. exceeded $2 trillion, and its human toll included over 4,000 American deaths and countless Iraqi civilian casualties. The Iraq invasion is a modern example of the catastrophic consequences of regime change, highlighting the risks of external intervention in complex political systems (Iraq 2003).

Consequences of U.S. Interventions

The outcomes of these regime changes reveal a consistent pattern of negative consequences:

• Political Instability: Interventions often led to prolonged turmoil, civil wars, or authoritarian rule. Guatemala’s 36-year civil war, Chile’s 17-year dictatorship, and Iraq’s ongoing instability are stark examples.
• Human Rights Abuses: U.S.-backed regimes frequently committed egregious violations. Pinochet’s Chile saw thousands tortured and killed, while Suharto’s Indonesia was responsible for a genocide. The Shah’s Iran used secret police to suppress dissent, fueling revolutionary sentiment.
• Economic Decline: Policies favoring foreign interests often exacerbated poverty and inequality. In Iran, the Shah’s pro-Western policies enriched elites while neglecting the broader population. In Guatemala and Chile, neoliberal reforms deepened economic disparities.
• Anti-American Sentiment: These interventions fueled resentment, contributing to anti-American movements. The 1979 Iranian Revolution was a direct consequence of the 1953 coup, and similar sentiments persist in Latin America and the Middle East.

The U.S. history of regime changes underscores the dangers of external interference in sovereign nations. In the context of Iran’s leadership succession, any U.S. attempt to influence the process—whether through covert operations or overt pressure—would repeat these historical mistakes, potentially destabilizing Iran and the broader Middle East. The 1953 coup, in particular, serves as a reminder of the long-term consequences of meddling in Iran’s internal affairs, suggesting that a cautious, non-interventionist approach is essential to avoid further regional turmoil.

There are many, many other examples of horrific coups by America.

Conclusion

The succession of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a critical issue for Iran’s future, with Mojtaba Khamenei and Alireza Arafi emerging as leading candidates, though the process remains shrouded in secrecy. The choice of the next Supreme Leader will shape Iran’s domestic policies, regional influence, and relations with the West, making it a matter of global significance. However, the United States’ history of regime changes, from the 1953 coup in Iran to interventions in Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, and Iraq, demonstrates the risks of external interference. These actions have consistently led to instability, human rights abuses, and anti-American sentiment, often undermining the very goals they sought to achieve. As Iran navigates this delicate transition, the lessons of history suggest that foreign intervention could exacerbate tensions and lead to unintended consequences. A prudent approach, respecting Iran’s sovereignty and allowing its internal processes to unfold, is essential to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past although, history has proven time and again it’s the guy with the most guns who becomes Supreme Leader in these types of countries.

A note from the author. There have been some successful regime changes from America. First one was America Herself. Another example is Japan but that cost 364,748 American casualties in the Pacific Theater and around $4 trillion in treasure. (Today’s money.)

Key Citations

• Why Khamenei Unlikely to Pick Son as Supreme Leader
• Iranian President’s Death Triggers Succession Competition
• visegrad24 Claims Mojtaba Khamenei Elected as Successor
• CIA Admits Role in 1953 Iran Coup
• Guatemala 1954: U.S. Overthrow of Foreign Governments
• Chile 1973: CIA Involvement in Allende Coup
• Operation Condor and Human Rights Abuses
• Indonesia 1965: U.S. Role in Anti-Communist Killings