NYT Report Reveals Alleged High-Stakes Strategy During Iran Conflict
A sensational report by The New York Times has claimed that early discussions surrounding the US-led conflict with Iran allegedly included a dramatic regime-change strategy aimed at reinstalling former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the country’s leader.
The report suggests that the controversial proposal emerged during the initial stages of the war and was allegedly developed through discussions involving Israeli intelligence agency Mossad and individuals linked to Ahmadinejad.
Report Claims Plan Emerged After Khamenei Strike
According to the report, the alleged plan gained momentum after strikes reportedly killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei during the conflict.
Following the attack, US President Donald Trump reportedly indicated publicly that it would be preferable if “someone from within” Iran took control of the country instead of direct foreign intervention.
The report claims that Ahmadinejad was viewed by some officials as a figure capable of managing Iran’s political and military structure during a possible transitional phase.
Ahmadinejad’s Past Made Plan Highly Controversial
The alleged strategy has drawn attention because Ahmadinejad, during his presidency between 2005 and 2013, was known globally for his aggressive anti-Western rhetoric and strong criticism of Israel.
Despite his earlier hardline image, the report states that Ahmadinejad had recently developed tensions with Iran’s current ruling establishment and was reportedly placed under house arrest in Tehran before the conflict escalated.
One of the most dramatic claims in the report involves an Israeli strike targeting Ahmadinejad’s residence during the opening phase of the war.
According to associates quoted in the report, the operation was allegedly intended to free Ahmadinejad from the control of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps rather than eliminate him.
An associate reportedly described the attack as “in effect a jailbreak operation.”
Former Iranian President Allegedly Lost Faith in Plan
Although Ahmadinejad reportedly survived the strike, the report claims he later became frustrated and disillusioned with the broader regime-change strategy.
Sources cited in the report alleged that officials in Washington viewed him as someone capable of stabilising Iran’s political and social situation during a transition period.
However, questions remain over how deeply Ahmadinejad was involved in the alleged discussions and whether he formally agreed to any such arrangement.
White House Highlights ‘Operation Epic Fury’
Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly defended the broader military operation, referred to as “Operation Epic Fury,” and outlined the administration’s objectives during the conflict.
According to Kelly, the campaign aimed to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, weaken its naval capabilities and reduce the influence of Iran-backed proxy groups in the region.
She also claimed that the operation had significantly weakened Iran’s military infrastructure while negotiations continued over permanently dismantling Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
International Questions Likely to Intensify
The explosive claims are expected to trigger fresh international debate over regime-change policies, covert operations and the broader geopolitical struggle involving the United States, Israel and Iran.
Political analysts believe the report could also deepen scrutiny of covert diplomacy and intelligence operations carried out during the conflict, especially given Ahmadinejad’s highly controversial political legacy.
So far, there has been no official confirmation from Iranian authorities regarding the alleged plan.
