# Report: U.S., Israel Considered Installing Ahmadinejad After Khamenei Killing

*Wednesday, May 20, 2026 at 4:07 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-05-20T04:07:04.453Z (17h ago)
**Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Middle East
**Importance**: 9/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/4594.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: Reports around 02:33 UTC on 20 May suggest U.S. officials discussed a contingency plan with Israel to position former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s leader following the killing of Ali Khamenei during the ongoing war with Iran. Ahmadinejad was reportedly injured in an Israeli strike on his home in Tehran.

## Key Takeaways
- Around 02:33 UTC on 20 May, reports emerged that the U.S. and Israel explored a plan to install Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s leader after Ali Khamenei’s killing in the current war.
- Israel allegedly targeted Ahmadinejad’s home in Tehran to free him from house arrest, injuring but not killing him.
- The claim points to high-level foreign interest in shaping Iran’s post-Khamenei political transition.
- If accurate, such planning would deepen Iranian perceptions of external regime-change agendas and raise regional escalation risks.

Information emerging around 02:33 UTC on 20 May 2026 indicates that the United States and Israel reportedly examined a contingency plan to elevate former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power after the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei during the ongoing war with Iran. According to unnamed U.S. officials described in the reporting, Israel conducted a strike on Ahmadinejad’s residence in Tehran, intended to free him from house arrest and facilitate his potential political reemergence. Ahmadinejad is said to have survived the strike but sustained injuries and later required medical treatment.

The reported plan, if substantiated, underscores the degree to which external actors have sought to influence Iran’s internal power dynamics amid active conflict. Ahmadinejad, once a central figure in Iran’s political establishment, had fallen out with segments of the ruling elite and faced significant restrictions. His potential elevation, backed or facilitated by foreign powers, would represent a profound departure from the established system of clerical oversight and succession.

Key actors include senior U.S. policymakers involved in Iran strategy, Israeli political and security leadership, and the fractured components of Iran’s governing apparatus dealing with the loss of Khamenei and the pressures of war. Ahmadinejad himself occupies a complex space in Iranian politics—both a symbol of hardline populism and a figure marginalized by parts of the clerical and security establishment.

The strategic logic behind considering Ahmadinejad as a replacement appears to rest on his name recognition, prior experience at the helm of the state, and potential ability to marshal nationalist sentiment. However, from an Iranian perspective, any perception that he is being positioned or supported by external adversaries would likely be politically toxic, undermining his legitimacy and fueling narratives of foreign interference. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), key clerical bodies, and competing political factions would all have strong incentives to resist or co-opt such an external attempt to engineer succession.

Regionally, the reported plan sheds light on the depth of the current war’s destabilizing effects on Iran’s governance structures. The removal of Khamenei, whether through targeted action or wartime developments, creates a succession crisis in a system heavily centered on the person of the Supreme Leader. External attempts to shape the outcome of that crisis—whether through military strikes, covert engagement, or public messaging—risk intensifying internal power struggles and pushing Iran toward more radicalized and securitized governance.

Globally, the suggestion that the U.S. and Israel contemplated installing a specific figure as Iran’s new leader will reverberate across debates on sovereignty, regime change, and the limits of foreign intervention. Even if such a plan remained exploratory and was never operationalized, its existence would validate long-standing Iranian claims that external powers seek not just to contain but to redesign its political order.

## Outlook & Way Forward

In the near term, confirmation or denial from U.S., Israeli, and Iranian officials will shape how this report is perceived domestically and internationally. Tehran is likely to use the alleged plot as evidence of hostile intent, justifying crackdowns on perceived internal collaborators and reinforcing calls for national unity against foreign enemies. Ahmadinejad’s personal status—his health, ability to communicate, and any public statements—will be closely monitored for signs of how he positions himself in this contested environment.

Over the medium term, Iran’s leadership succession and power consolidation dynamics will remain a focal point for regional stability. Multiple factions within the state will jockey for influence, with the IRGC and core clerical institutions seeking to ensure that any post-Khamenei leadership maintains ideological continuity and resistance to external pressure. The revelation of foreign planning around succession will likely push these actors further toward hardline positions.

Strategically, this episode highlights the risks of overt or covert regime-engineering attempts during active conflict. Even well-resourced external plans often collide with complex domestic political realities, producing unintended consequences. Analysts should watch for shifts in Iran’s internal security posture, purges or realignments among elites, and any moves by external powers to recalibrate their engagement strategies in light of heightened sensitivities over sovereignty and legitimacy.