RSS
Does America Have a Plan Once Iran’s Supreme Leader Dies?
Since 1989, the unwavering grip of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has cast a long shadow over the Middle East, surviving the terms of six US presidents.
This period has been characterized by a strategic game of political chess, with Iran often playing a destabilizing role in the region. US presidents, CIA directors, and the broader US intelligence community have kept a diligent watch over Iran’s maneuvers. The 1979 revolution, which fundamentally transformed the societal and political landscape of Iran, marked the beginning of an era that the White House has monitored with acute vigilance, particularly the actions and evil intentions of Tehran’s mullah regime.
In the ever-shifting sands of US politics, marked by bipartisan candidates and fluctuating party influences, the question of which party will lead the nation next remains open. Amidst this uncertainty, Iran’s strategic posture and internal dynamics consistently emerge as points of contention and discussion among both Democrats and Republicans. Democratic presidents such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden have sought engagement strategies with Tehran’s clerical leadership, aiming to temper Iran’s regional ambitions through diplomacy and dialogue. However, these efforts have often been met with limited success, mired by complex geopolitical realities and Iran’s intricate internal politics.
In contrast, Republican presidents have typically favored a more hard-line approach, symbolizing a show of strength and resolve. Yet, despite their tougher stance, the idea of directly instigating regime change in Iran has remained a complex issue, often sidestepped in Washington D.C.’s political discussions. This hesitance reflects the complexities and potential repercussions of altering Iran’s power structure, a task fraught with unpredictable outcomes.
Throughout this era, spanning over three decades, all six US presidents have closely observed the significant nationwide anti-regime protests in Iran, indicative of widespread public dissent against Khamenei’s authoritarian rule. This sustained observation underscores the geopolitical significance of Iran in US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the American democratic process has seen six presidents come and go, each elected through the people’s mandate — a stark contrast to the narrative in Iran, where Khamenei has wielded power under the guise of divine right, unchallenged and unyielding.
The impending post-Khamenei era in Iran teeters on the brink of uncertainty. The absence of a clear and widely accepted successor poses a significant challenge. The proposition of installing Mojtaba Khamenei, Khamenei’s son, or Ebrahim Raisi is seen by many as an outright affront to the Iranian public, reminiscent of dynastic successions in Islamic history. Such a move could precipitate the further unraveling of Iranian society, already seething with deep-rooted animosity towards the Mullah regime.
Since the Islamic Marxist revolt in 1979, Iran has undergone a transformation marked by increasing corruption and societal decay. The once revered notion of religion has been co-opted as a tool for amassing wealth and consolidating power. This period has been punctuated by heinous crimes committed in the name of preserving power. The Islamic caliphate’s history is a testament to the continuous struggle for power and dominance, often marred by violence and internal purges.
The current Shia mullah’s regime in Iran reflects aspects of the historical Islamic caliphates, spanning a 1,400-year legacy, with Khomeini’s movement marking the beginning of a new era of authoritarianism. The destructive ideology of Khomeinism, with its roots in savagery and criminality, ascended to power through manipulation rather than democratic means. Since 1979, Iran has been governed by a regime where the Supreme Leader interferes in all state affairs, placing himself above the law. The concept of Wilayat al-Faqih, central to this governance model, lacks any genuine legal or moral foundation.
Iran today stands precariously at the brink of social unrest and potential upheaval. The government’s response to dissent has been characterized by brutal suppression, relying on religious authority and force to maintain control. The regime’s legitimacy is increasingly questioned, with social media playing a pivotal role in exposing its fragilities.
As we contemplate the future, the question of whether the Islamic Republic will collapse during Khamenei’s lifetime looms large. The current level of suppression, coupled with disorganized opposition and remnants of the 1979 revolt, makes such an outcome uncertain. None of them are serious for the White House. Yet, upon Khamenei’s death, the Iranian populace might become uncontrollable, driven by pent-up frustration, and a lack of respect for the regime. Is there any plan in Washington?
During Khamenei’s eventual funeral ceremonies, the government is likely to engage in extensive propaganda and displays of power, focusing on introducing the third caliph. However, the fear of a public uprising looms large. Iran’s internal situation is catastrophic, resembling a nation plundered and awaiting an imminent economic tsunami. The government flounders, devoid of competence and direction.
This critical period may represent a turning point in Iran’s contemporary history. Yet, the Iranian opposition, fragmented and lacking a unified vision, is ill-prepared to offer a viable alternative. Despite this, figures like Prince Reza Pahlavi hold significant sway, particularly among younger generations, owing to the enduring credibility of the Pahlavi name in Iran’s modern history. However, there appears to be no inclination from the White House to engage with him.
In closing, Iran stands at a crossroads, with its people holding the key to any substantial change. The unfolding narrative of succession and the potential downfall of the Mullahs’ Republic pose profound questions about Iran’s future and its impact on global politics. The coming months may shed more light on the potential paths Iran may take, in a landscape rife with uncertainty and anticipation. It is likely that briefings in the White House will be extensively focused on developments in Iran.
Erfan Fard is a counter-terrorism analyst and Middle East Studies researcher based in Washington, DC. He is in Middle Eastern regional security affairs with a particular focus on Iran, counter terrorism, IRGC, MOIS and ethnic conflicts in MENA. He graduated in International Security Studies (London M. University, UK), and in International Relations (CSU-LA). Erfan is a Jewish Kurd of Iran, and he is fluent in Persian, Kurdish, Arabic and English. / Follow him from this twitter account @EQFARD / The newly published book of Erfan Fard is: “The Black Shabbat” (Israel, the target of terrorist), which has been published in the USA. www.erfanfard.com
The post Does America Have a Plan Once Iran’s Supreme Leader Dies? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.