An analysis published by The Guardian warns that Iran’s future after the US-Israeli bombing campaign could range from “an orderly, benign transition to bloody chaos,” with regime change described as “an aspiration rather than a plan.”
Writing in the newspaper, senior international correspondent Julian Borger says the strikes appear aimed at crippling “the pillars of the country’s power, specifically its nuclear and missile programmes and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).”
While US president Donald Trump has framed the assault as a historic opportunity for Iranians to “take back your government,” Borger cautions that what follows may be far less predictable.
A dream of swift transition
The most peaceful — but “least likely,” analysts say — would be a rapid collapse of the regime, with armed forces standing down and opposition groups forming an interim government, possibly involving exiled royal figure Reza Pahlavi.
However, Borger notes that history suggests violent regime collapses rarely yield stable democracies. The IRGC is unlikely to surrender easily, and many Iranians remain wary of monarchist leadership.
Maduro Model
Another possibility is what Borger dubs a “Maduro model,” in which the regime survives under new leadership more willing to negotiate. A relative moderate such as Hassan Rouhani — or a pragmatic hardliner — could replace Ali Khamenei and strike a deal with Washington.
Under this scenario, Iran might curb its nuclear and missile programmes and grant oil concessions, in exchange for regime survival. Fresh talks with the Trump administration could produce a compromise “between defiance and capitulation.”
Entrenched hardliners
Borger suggests one of the more likely outcomes is that the regime “weathers the storm.” A hardline successor could double down, pushing nuclear activities further underground and limiting oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a worst-case version, Iran could abandon religious prohibitions on nuclear weapons and race to build a bomb from its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Over time, Borger writes, the country could become “increasingly similar to North Korea: isolated, paranoid and nuclear-armed.”
Civil war and fragmentation
The most chaotic outcome would see weeks of bombing drain regime forces, triggering defections, mass protests and armed separatist movements across Iran’s borders. Ethnic tensions could intensify, and rival opposition groups could compete violently for control.
In such turmoil, even Iran’s nuclear material could become “a prize to be fought over,” Borger warns, raising fears of proliferation beyond the country’s borders.
Though this “worst-case outcome is not generally seen as the most probable,” he stresses, “it is by no means impossible.”
