A dramatic new phase is unfolding in U.S. strategic thinking around Iran, and according to emerging reports, the priority may no longer be how to end the war—but who governs Iran when the dust settles. Under the leadership of Donald Trump, senior officials are reportedly evaluating a controversial pathway: identifying a powerful insider capable of stabilizing Iran post-conflict while aligning with Western geopolitical interests.
At the center of this calculation is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a figure deeply embedded within Iran’s political and military establishment. According to reports from Politico, U.S. officials are considering what they describe as a “Venezuela model”—a strategy that involves backing an internal power broker in exchange for economic concessions, particularly around oil flows and nuclear compliance.
Ghalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander and current parliamentary speaker, is seen by some insiders as a “hot option.” His influence within the system, especially ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), gives him leverage that external opposition figures lack. However, this same connection raises serious concerns about whether he can truly pivot away from entrenched ideological and military structures.
The selection process, as described by sources, includes what insiders call a “quick test”—a high-risk vetting mechanism where candidates who fail to meet expectations are swiftly sidelined. In the current volatile environment, such language carries heavy implications. Recent developments—including the reported deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists—underscore the intensity of the ongoing conflict and the blurred lines between military operations and political maneuvering.
Meanwhile, alternative figures appear to be losing traction. Reza Pahlavi, long viewed in some Western circles as a symbolic opposition leader, has reportedly been dismissed internally as lacking the operational network required to influence events داخل Iran. Having lived in exile since the 1979 revolution, analysts suggest he lacks the institutional foothold necessary to control critical assets such as the Strait of Hormuz in a post-war scenario.
This leaves Washington in a paradoxical position: considering a man who is simultaneously an adversary and a potential partner. Reports indicate that Ghalibaf has issued aggressive rhetoric, including threats targeting global financial interests, while behind the scenes, intermediaries are allegedly exploring diplomatic channels involving figures like Jared Kushner.
The geopolitical tension extends beyond Tehran. Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel will “safeguard vital interests in any scenario,” signaling potential resistance to any deal that leaves Iran with residual strategic capabilities. As a result, the current pause in hostilities is not merely a ceasefire—it is a critical window for Washington to align its position with Jerusalem before the next phase begins.
Former intelligence official Joe Kent has also weighed in, suggesting that while the military confrontation with Iran may be nearing its peak, a diplomatic clash with Israel over the terms of peace could be imminent. His remarks highlight a broader reality: the battlefield is shifting from missiles to negotiations.
From a strategic perspective, recent military actions appear designed to weaken Iran’s bargaining position. Reports of degraded military infrastructure, disrupted communications, and targeted strikes suggest a calculated effort to force concessions at the negotiating table. In this context, force and diplomacy are not separate tracks—they are intertwined elements of a single strategy aimed at shaping the endgame.
However, an alternative path remains on the table: prolonged destabilization. Some analysts warn that pushing Iran into internal collapse could trigger a decade-long civil conflict, risking nuclear material dispersal, mass displacement, and significant global economic shocks—particularly in oil markets. Such an outcome could invite intervention from powers like China and Russia, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.
The Ghalibaf option, proponents argue, avoids these risks by maintaining state continuity while enabling controlled reforms. The goal would be to stabilize energy flows, secure nuclear assets, and declare a strategic victory without triggering wider chaos.
Yet the fundamental question remains unresolved: can a figure so deeply rooted in the IRGC truly operate independently of it? Or would this strategy simply replicate past failures, where cooperative figures consolidate power, benefit from economic relief, and later abandon their commitments?
As March 28 approaches, the stakes could not be higher. The temporary pause in hostilities is set to expire, and key diplomatic engagements—potentially involving backchannel meetings—hang in the balance. In Washington, decision-makers are effectively running a real-time experiment on one of the most complex geopolitical puzzles of the modern era.
In this high-stakes “chess game,” every move carries global consequences. The strikes may shape the battlefield—but the real outcome will be determined by who ultimately holds power when the war ends.
0 Comments