March 8, 2026

SHARE |

The U.S. Struggles with Exit Strategy as Iran Selects New Supreme Leader

(AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)

On Sunday, the Iranians defiantly selected the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's son, Mojtaba — who is believed to be even harder-line than his father — as the next Supreme Leader. In the days leading up to this announcement, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested support for what experts term the “Venezuela solution” — replacing the top leader with subordinate leaders who will preserve the existing power structure but offer broad cooperation with the United States. Trump told Axios on Thursday that he must be personally involved in the selection of Iran’s new leadership, as he was in deciding Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez would succeed President Nicolas Maduro after his capture by U.S. forces. Trump made clear that he would seek to veto the selection of any new Iranian leader who would not change Iran’s behavior. Regional leaders assess that a Venezuela-type solution, if achieved, could bring the war to a rapid conclusion.  

Yet, experts and global officials are quick to point out that all layers of Iran’s existing power structure oppose U.S. influence in Iran and the broader region. Regime officials differ only by degree, and the opportunities to mimic the transition achieved in Venezuela are narrow. When addressing reports last week that Mojtaba Khamenei, the newly announced Supreme Leader, was favored to succeed his father, Trump said the pick would be “unacceptable.” Axios quoted him as saying: “We want someone that will bring harmony and peace to Iran…They are wasting their time. Khamenei’s son is a lightweight. I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy [Rodríguez] in Venezuela.”  

Yet instead of deterring that selection, Trump’s comments likely reinforced support for his succession. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leaders and other hardliners assert Mojtaba’s elevation would signal the regime’s defiance of Trump’s military action. The 88-member Assembly of Experts quickly voted Mojtaba as the new leader. In pushing Mojtaba’s vote through, the Regime also demonstrated that it still holds firm control over the country’s political processes, despite long-standing taboos in the Regime regarding political dynasty or hereditary succession. Nevertheless, Trump’s comments on Sunday that Mojtaba, if selected, “would not last” suggested he would be immediately targeted by U.S. and Israeli forces upon his accession.   

By selecting Mojtaba, Iranian leaders realize that they are further antagonizing the United States. Other candidates could have been more likely to satisfy most U.S. demands. U.S. officials might have viewed the choice of even a relatively moderate successor, such as former President Hassan Rouhani or Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, as an off-ramp toward a ceasefire. Even still, these and other potential successors all subscribe to the principles of Iran’s Islamic revolution: to defy U.S. influence over Iran and the region, to oppose Israel’s existence, and to develop strategic technology to insulate Iran from external pressure and intimidation. It is doubtful a moderate figure atop Iran’s power structure, even if inclined to cooperate with Washington, would be able to exert sufficient control over hardline power centers to dramatically change Iranian policy.  

Power centers, such as the IRGC, its Basij militia organization, the intelligence services, and the judiciary — which is responsible for prosecuting political dissidents — would pressure any new leader to maintain existing policies. Two establishment figures already manage the war and the government, Supreme National Security Committee chief Ali Larijani and Majles (parliament) Speaker Mohammad Baqr Qalibaf. These figures will remain powerful and insistent on keeping Khamenei’s policies unless they are purged.   

Mojtaba’s selection also carries powerful symbolic weight within Iran. His father, mother, sister, wife, daughter, and young niece were reportedly killed just a week ago during the U.S. and Israeli strike against the Ayatollah. The Regime can frame him as a symbol of Iran’s sacrifice, which would serve as a rallying cry in a country where the concept of martyrdom holds immense ideological and political significance.  

Still, Iran’s elevation of moderate figures to the top post and other key positions could have been sufficient to produce a resumption of U.S.-Iran negotiations and a ceasefire. Yet this possibility seems more and more elusive. Regional and global leaders, as well as many elected U.S. officials, are dissecting statements by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a clear exit strategy from the war in Iran. Formally, Trump and Netanyahu have justified the Operation Epic Fury campaign as an effort to thwart what they assert was a near-term Iranian threat to U.S. and regional security. Last week, Trump specified four key goals of the combat as: ensuring Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, destroying Iran's navy, eliminating its ballistic missile threat, and reducing Iran’s ability to support the regional armed factions in Tehran’s “Axis of Resistance.”  

U.S. military leaders assert that the operation's articulated strategic goals could be achieved within its planned four- to five-week time frame. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly told Arab foreign ministers Thursday the war would likely last “several more weeks.” U.S. officials have said the campaign is “ahead of schedule,” basing that assertion on the strikes that have killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several key advisers and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders. However, the deaths have not, to date, disrupted Iran’s governing or retaliatory capability, and the economic and social disruptions of Iran’s responses throughout the region are mounting.  

Regional and global leaders are increasingly concerned that the U.S. and Israel are intent on achieving a broader goal — toppling and replacing Iran’s 47-year-old Islamic regime. They base those fears on statements by Trump during the major Iranian uprising in January, in which he promised protesters “Help is On Its Way,” and urged them to “Keep Protesting – Take Over Your Institutions.” On Friday, Trump fueled perceptions he is intent on regime change by calling for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" in a post on his Truth Social media channel. He added that after the current regime surrenders, "GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s)" must be selected. However, the U.S. messaging has been confusing. In a call with Arab foreign ministers on Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly told his counterparts that the U.S. goal is not “regime change,” while simultaneously clouding the issue by asserting that Washington wants different people running the country. 

Experts are united in assessing that a regime-change mission will require many months of effort and involve the deployment of ground forces, sure to spark unrestrained Iranian retaliation in all directions, including beyond the Middle East. A longer war will not only produce significant U.S. casualties but also exacerbate the adverse economic consequences already evident, including a spike in energy prices, significantly increasing the chances of a global recession. Arab Gulf leaders warn that Iranian drone attacks, in particular, over an extended period will cause not only civilian casualties but also billions of dollars of damage to civilian infrastructure and property. A long war will drive away tourism, the expatriate workforce, and global commerce that the Gulf leaders need to reduce their dependence on hydrocarbon exports. Statements by Trump corroborating reports that he is considering limited ground operations in Iran have alarmed regional leaders, as well as many members of the U.S. Congress.   

The rapidly mounting economic and political costs fallout from Iran’s retaliatory attacks on fourteen neighboring and nearby countries have motivated the region’s leaders to press Trump to clarify his terms for terminating the operation and returning to the negotiating table with Iran. Last week, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stated on social media that "some countries have begun mediation efforts" to stop the war,” a reference to states such as the Sultanate of Oman that have called for an early settlement to the conflict.  

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi publicly expressed his disappointment that the U.S and Israel offensive had derailed the U.S.-Iran talks he was mediating on limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Trump cited U.S. perceptions that Iran’s offers in those talks were insincere as one justification for launching Operation Epic Fury. His aides added assertions that Iran was weeks away from producing a nuclear weapon – a claim not backed by U.S. intelligence or by the UN-backed monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But both the U.S. and the top surviving Iranian regime leaders have rejected talks to end the conflict. Iran’s hardliners perceive pressure is mounting on the U.S. and Israel to end the fighting, and that they have no need to concede on any key issues.  

Recognizing the call for “unconditional surrender” set off alarm bells in the region about a long war engulfing the region for many months, Trump tried to calm fears on Friday by telling Axios media he defines surrender as the complete destruction of the regime's military capabilities. He told Axios: "Unconditional surrender could be that [the Iranians] announce it. But it could also be when they can't fight any longer because they don't have anyone or anything to fight with." The comments suggested that Trump perceives he could claim his offensive achieved a substantial change in Iranian behavior – even if not a change of its regime. Alternatively, a reported potential U.S. special forces mission under consideration, that would spirit the 460 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium out of Iran that is believed to be buried in the Esfahan nuclear facility, might enable the U.S. to claim the operation accomplished its objectives and can be ended.  

Nevertheless, the regional conflagration set off by the U.S. and Israeli offensive has likely fueled Trump’s interest in a settlement that his aides can advertise as meeting core U.S. objectives, even if it is short of Iranian “capitulation.” Whether revived U.S.-Iran talks bring an enduring halt to further U.S.-Iran conflict will likely depend on the extent of Iranian concessions at the talks, and Iran’s compliance with any agreement reached.