President Donald Trump openly questioned Tuesday whether Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, should lead the country after the war, saying “someone from within” would be “more appropriate” — and acknowledging that most potential successors have already been killed.
Standing alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, Trump was asked about Pahlavi’s prospects. His response was notably unenthusiastic.
“Some people like him, and we haven’t been thinking too much about that,” Trump said. “He looks like a very nice person. But it would seem to me that somebody who is there, who is currently popular — if there is such a person — would be more appropriate.”
When pressed further, Trump offered a grim reality check: “Most of the people we had in mind are dead.”
The Succession Problem
The president’s comments underscore a central dilemma as the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran enters its fourth day. Saturday’s initial strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with a large swathe of the country’s senior-most leadership. Another strike reportedly targeting surviving Iranian leaders took place Tuesday, Trump confirmed.
“We had some in mind from that group that is dead,” Trump said. “And now, we have another group. They may be dead also, based on reports.”
He added: “Pretty soon, we’re not going to know anybody.” Trump said there is a “third wave” of possible candidates but “we don’t know those people.”
The Venezuela Model
As a potential template for Iran’s future, Trump pointed to Venezuela, where U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro on January 3. Following his removal, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as interim leader with Washington’s support.
“Venezuela was so incredible because we did the attack, and we kept government totally intact,” Trump said. “And we have Delcy, who’s been very good. We have the whole chain of command.”
He highlighted the economic benefits: “We’ve taken out a hundred million barrels of oil already. And a big part of that goes to them, and a big part goes to us. It’s been great. We paid for the war many times over, and we’re going to be running the oil.”
The implication for Iran is clear: Trump may prefer a cooperative figure from within the existing regime over an exiled opposition leader with no current constituency inside the country.
The Pahlavi Factor
Pahlavi, 65, has lived in exile in the Washington D.C. area since childhood, when his father was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. He has positioned himself as a potential transitional leader, releasing a detailed 156-page “Emergency Phase Booklet” outlining a roadmap to democracy that includes dissolving the IRGC, restoring ties with Israel and the U.S., and holding referendums on the form of government.
In an interview with CBS on Sunday, Pahlavi said Iranians trust him because “they cannot associate me in any way or form to the revolution or part of this regime.” He claimed that “millions of Iranians inside Iran and outside Iran are calling my name.”
Hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets of U.S. and European cities in February following Pahlavi’s call for a “global day of action” in solidarity with protests that swept Iranian cities in December and January. Tens of thousands were killed in the government’s crackdown on those protests, with Trump putting the estimated casualties at 35,000.
Pahlavi is scheduled to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas later this month.
The ‘Worst-Case Scenario’
Trump framed his concern about Iran’s future leadership in stark terms.
“I guess the worst case would be we do this, and then somebody takes over who’s as bad as the previous person, right? That could happen. We don’t want that to happen,” he said. “You go through this and then, in five years, you realize you put somebody in who is no better.”
He said he hopes “someone who can set Iran right for its people comes to power.”
Asked directly about Pahlavi, Trump repeated his ambivalence: “I guess he is. Some people like him.” But his preference was clear. Someone from within Iran, he said, “would be more appropriate.”
