US and Israel ‘hoped to install Ahmadinejad as Iran’s leader’

Lead

A New York Times investigation has revealed that the United States and Israel entered the war with Iran intending to replace the regime's leadership with former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to US officials briefed on the plan. The report, covered by multiple outlets, describes an "audacious plan" that "quickly went awry," leaving Ahmadinejad's current whereabouts and condition unknown.

Coverage Comparison

The New York Times report was picked up by several international outlets, each offering distinct perspectives. Al Jazeera framed the story as exposing the audacity of US-Israeli efforts to reshape Iran's political landscape, emphasizing that the plan was driven by a desire to weaken Iran rather than promote democracy. The Guardian approached the story with skepticism, noting that the plan was "widely seen as implausible or as disinformation" and highlighted the overestimation of opposition to the regime. The Jerusalem Post offered a sharply critical take, with its contributor — who claims to have met Ahmadinejad personally — dismissing the plan as "beyond absurd" and accusing the Times of "reckless journalism." The Intercept, meanwhile, used the report to argue that the Iran war was never about freedom, citing Ahmadinejad's role in suppressing dissent.

Key Claims

• The plan itself: The New York Times reported that the US and Israel planned to install Ahmadinejad as Iran's leader after killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As quoted by Al Jazeera and The Guardian, this plan was based on the model used in Venezuela, where US troops captured Nicolás Maduro but left the political system intact.

• Ahmadinejad's status: Multiple sources agree that Ahmadinejad had clashed with Khamenei and was under close watch, effectively house arrest, before the Israeli strike on a building near his home. The strike was intended to free him, according to the report, but he was wounded in the attack, and his current condition remains unknown.

• Ahmadinejad's political history: The former president, who served from 2005 to 2013, was known for his calls to "wipe Israel off the map" and his strong support of Iran's nuclear program. He also violently cracked down on the 2009 Green Movement protests. However, the Times noted that in a 2019 interview, Ahmadinejad praised President Trump and argued for rapprochement with the US.

• Why the plan failed: The report indicates that Ahmadinejad became disillusioned with the operation and that the plan "quickly went awry." The Guardian suggests that the episode shows the US and Israel overestimated opposition to the regime.

Perspectives

Al Jazeera (MENA-centered): Emphasizes that the plan reveals true US-Israeli intentions, which were not about freedom but about weakening Iran. The coverage is analytical, noting the irony of installing a figure who crushed the Green Movement.

The Guardian (UK/center-left): Expresses skepticism about the plan's feasibility, framing it as implausible or potentially disinformation. The focus is on the strategic miscalculations of the US and Israel.

Jerusalem Post (Israeli/right-leaning): Rejects the premise outright, calling the plan "absurd" and questioning the Times' credibility. The author's personal anecdotes about Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic views serve to underscore the impossibility of the plan.

The Intercept (US/left): Uses the report to critique US policy, arguing that the war was never about democracy but about destabilizing Iran. The coverage highlights Ahmadinejad's role in suppressing dissent as evidence of the plan's hypocrisy.