The former political science lecturer from the University of Tehrananticipated Israeli attacks on Iran, the targeting of military leaders, increased erosion of the Islamic Republic’s regional influence, and the government being caught up in internal disturbances — events that have mostly come to pass.
Currently, nine months later, Euronews has once more interviewed Ahmad Naghibzadeh, an author, translator, and former department head at Science Po.
During the interview, Naghibzadeh drew a parallel between Iran’s present condition and 19th-century Sicily, where, according to him, the mafia dominated the city. He suggested that the only way for the ayatollah to maintain his authority is by eliminating the “yes-men” around him and substituting them with capable, loyal individuals.
Alternatively, he thinks, the conclusion of the Islamic Republic is unavoidable, as individuals recognize that situations will not quickly enhance once the existing government is removed, yet perceive they have no other choice.
Naghibzadeh also cautioned that if opposition groups do not come together and adhere to the established guidelines for political rivalry, Iran could encounter a challenging future that might be more severe than the current situation.
He also forecasted that prior to Nowruz — 20 March 2026 — Israel, in collaboration with the US, will conduct another strike against Iran, following which, according to him, “the end of the tunnel will be more apparent.”
Read the full Euronews interview with Dr Naqibzadeh below.
Euronews: In an interview nine months ago, you painted a picture of Iran’s future, and remarkably, almost everything has come true. Where are we now, and considering the challenges the Islamic Republic is encountering, both within and outside the country, what are the possibilities for the future?
Ahmad Naghibzadeh: Fundamentally, in developing nations — which include us (Iran) — since the early 20th century, when internal changes and external pressures come together, they arrive at a single critical moment. When the route for reform is closed, the way to revolution becomes open.
In 2005, when (former President) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed leadership, the individuals in control were pleased and sensed a sense of triumph.
Four years on, after the Green Movement was suppressed, they regarded it as additional validation of their authority. However, we were aware that they were moving towards a cul-de-sac.
At that time, the global community had not yet determined how to handle this government.
As time passed, growing local frustration along with international policy issues merged these two paths. Public discontent hit its highest point, while the global community decided it could not interact with this government.
We are currently reaching a point where a small event could trigger a larger upheaval. What follows this turmoil remains uncertain — however, the current situation of the governing system mirrors the last days of Shah (Reza Pahlavi’s) regime.
If we look at it more carefully, we need to compare it with the time when the shah selected an unliked and unfit person, Sharif Imami, as prime minister.
Although the shah had the chance to review certain suggestions and appoint someone who could enhance the circumstances, he did not declare that free elections would take place. He did not transfer any of his power, and ultimately yielded to genuine reforms when it was already too late.
These are the current circumstances; rather than seeking help from the public after the 12-day conflict to enhance the situation, the individuals demonstrated their strict approach by selecting unliked individuals and reverting to previous states.
Euronews: So you think the Islamic Republic has reached its end and there’s no longer any hope for it to emerge from these crises successfully?
Naghibzadeh: The sole viable option — if there is one — would involve the Supreme Leader removing the sycophants in his vicinity, sending them to the Lut desert, and appointing competent, patriotic individuals instead.
They must declare free elections in June next year, involving all political groups and parties. This is the sole route that could alter the situation.
This was the error that the Shah also committed. Had he declared free elections and political liberties in September 1978, the nation would not have fallen into disorder. However, he acted too late.
In the Islamic Republic, those in authority implement measures that end up harming them, intensifying their own challenges. Following the conflict, they selected people who were deeply unpopular. Rather than apprehending and trying thieves, they target medical facilities.
Hence, the result of this path is unmistakable: a storm is approaching—one that will carry away numerous elements.
This tempest will also signify the conclusion of Safavid rule in Iran. In the end, there will be no other option but to replicate what occurred in Europe: settling the dispute between religion and the state by favoring the state.
This procedure started during the time of Shah Reza but was never concluded. However, this time, it will attain its ultimate outcome, and I am certain that the nation’s young people will announce the end of Safavid rule in Iran.
Euronews: How probable is a change that originates from within the system — such as a military takeover or a “Napoleonic” leader rising from the military?
Ahmad Naghibzadeh: The chance of this situation happening is very minimal. They have not left anyone with such capability, and there is no such intention at its core. More importantly, the public would not endorse such a person; they are one part of the equation, and they would need to approve of him.
So which individuals are they meant to present? Systems of this nature are encircled solely by flatterers.
That is why I claim the leader must take a bucket and a broom, then discard all the undesirable people he has surrounded himself with into the garbage and cast them into the Lut desert.
If there had been at least one individual who truly cared about Iran, Islam, and this system, they would have been promptly removed or ignored, stopping them from carrying out their duties. Consequently, they have made sure that no such competent person is allowed to be close to them.
Euronews: Former president Hassan Rouhani has spoken out more since the 12-day conflict. Might he, or other moderate individuals, be a feasible choice during a period of stalemate?
Naghibzadeh: If he comes forward, the security forces will kill him within the first week. When I refer to “the system,” I actually mean there’s no structured system remaining. The hardliners would remove Rouhani right away.
These powerful figures themselves invited outsiders into the nation and equipped them to carry out a coup after the leadership changed. These are truly wicked individuals who prevent Rouhani from taking office and remove him on the very first day.
Euronews: What about exiled opposition leaders? Some highlight Reza Pahlavi as a potential alternative, while others voice significant concerns.
Naghibzadeh: Indeed, the lack of unity indicates the absence of a defined long-term vision. Leadership typically arises in times of conflict.
Certainly, the leader emerges during the campaign process. It doesn’t always have to be a single individual — it might involve a group leadership that establishes parties and promotes effective governance.
Euronews: What do you believe the global community’s perspective on these events will be? You mentioned that the international community has reached the conclusion that it is impossible to collaborate with the Islamic Republic.
Naghibzadeh: I trust that the global community and leading nations have not taken perilous actions regarding Iran’s future. Iranians have demonstrated over three millennia that they are capable of handling their own matters.
However, if, by the worst of circumstances, the global community were to choose the division of Iran, or the rise of civil conflict and disorder, it would be extremely terrifying and worrying—just considering such a situation is enough to make one feel uneasy and lose sleep.
Even a method akin to what was applied in Afghanistan—just departing and abandoning the nation—would render such a result feasible.
Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the blame for everything lies with those who had the chance to make the correct choices at the appropriate moment but did not. The final accountability for these outcomes belongs to the Islamic Republic.
Euronews: Did the 12-day conflict change the Islamic Republic’s strategy? Initially, it appeared that some room was beginning to open, but in the end, economic issues, along with obstacles in the political and civil areas, resurfaced.
Naghibzadeh: These men, due to their relentless persistence and stubbornness, are causing harm to the nation. It is remarkable.
It is clear to all that they faced significant setbacks during the 12-day conflict, yet they still asserted that they ‘delivered a slap’ and came out as winners. Even boldness has its boundaries. The global community is aware of who truly prevailed. What do they think the people are?
In the past, displaying aggression and making threats towards powerful countries have not led to any positive outcomes. There has never been a case where this approach worked successfully.
Despite having immense power, the Islamic Republic could not achieve victory in these conflicts. Napoleon and Hitler also eventually fell — because, in essence, it is impossible.
And this is before taking into account the reality that you are now dealing with a Donald Trump who shows no regard for the United Nations, NATO, Congress, or any formal limitations.
In a remarkably exceptional action, he deploys troops, kidnaps the leader of a nation from his residence, and puts him on trial.
Euronews: Following the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, some people speculated that maybe it would be Ali Khamenei’s turn.
Naghibzadeh: I don’t believe a comparable arrest would take place in Iran. The circumstances in Iran and Venezuela differ, yet it’s evident to all that this regime is nearing its conclusion.
Euronews: How did the Islamic Republic reach this stage? What route brought us to this condition where everyone is talking about the government being near its conclusion?
Naghibzadeh: These contented religious leaders, who appear unable to even imagine losing, have consistently behaved as though divine support ensures their triumph. It is exactly these end-of-the-world convictions that have led the nation to its present condition.
This could have been entirely prevented. They had the option to keep ruling without causing the system to collapse.
In the time of (former President) Hashemi Rafsanjani, even with significant political and civil limitations — such as breaches of human rights, political executions, and difficult circumstances for detainees — there was still progress being made and an impression that development was occurring.
However, they progressively closed down all avenues for Iranians. They left no room open. Any place that had even the tiniest source of wealth, they took it for themselves.
The nation has transformed into a mafia-like structure, where all activities are conducted via rent-seeking and monopolies — ranging from cigarettes to milk, yogurt, and essential dairy items.
This is the same group of people who experienced eight years of conflict with Iraq without significant public outcry, even though they faced great difficulties.
So why are they no longer able to endure the current situation? Because the theft has become evident, and the scandals can no longer be refuted.
Euronews: Will circumstances get better following the Islamic Republic? Do we have a clear understanding of what will come next?
Naghibzadeh: No, everyone is aware that challenges will arise, but what actions will people take? What are they waiting for? To face starvation, with their buying power diminishing daily and enduring a slow demise?
Individuals are fully conscious that, once this administration steps down, the circumstances will remain challenging, and numerous issues will arise, yet they have no alternative.
By the way, they are not foolishly optimistic in claiming that everything will be fine after the Islamic Republic.
Euronews: In this scenario, what steps can opposition groups take to reduce the challenges during the transition phase?
Naghibzadeh: The only option left for them is to come together. They have to comply with the game’s rules and establish a framework where the people’s vote on the new government and constitution is accepted. Should this not happen, there will be civil conflict and chaos within the nation, leading to situations even worse than those currently observed.
I say again: everything will eventually be blamed on the Islamic Republic, just as the 1979 revolution was eventually blamed on the Shah.
Euronews: Considering the events in Venezuela, some people believe that due to worries about the high expenses involved in changing a regime and the situations that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US administration might be considering taking control of the system and appointing someone from the same group, as long as there is a shift in the overall strategy. How probable is this scenario for Iran?
Naghibzadeh: Definitely not. As soon as the supreme leader is gone, they will start fighting among themselves.
He serves as the link that keeps them united. If it snaps, internal disputes will erupt. Iran today is similar to 19th-century Sicily — encircled by organized crime groups.
I don’t believe that applies in Venezuela, and this is how criminal gangs maintain control. Unusual situations have emerged in the country, where we cannot claim there is no government, nor can we say there is a government.
Euronews: Currently, there are also more reports regarding a potential Israeli strike. Does Israel gain from conducting another attack, or would it prefer to remain passive and observe the Islamic Republic bring itself down?
Naghibzadeh: Initially, the United States and Israel are not independent entities. In my opinion, Iran will face another attack before Nowruz. By that time, numerous aspects will become more evident, and the exit from the tunnel will slowly come into sight.
I am convinced that another strike is likely to occur — targeting the last remaining groups seen as dangers to Israel, while simultaneously pushing forward a political change.
Euronews: Could the ayatollah himself be a target?
Naghibzadeh: It wouldn’t significantly matter if he was directly targeted. He isn’t invulnerable, and his voice already resembles that of someone severely unwell. Still, I can’t exclude the chance that he might be targeted.
Euronews: Do you believe that following this attack, a significant portion of Iran’s future will be influenced by the decisions made by global powers regarding Iran?
Naghibzadeh: That is indeed true. Furthermore, we Iranians need to acknowledge that this is a crucial sign.
Do you believe that, had world leaders not chosen at the Guadeloupe Conference for the shah to resign and Mr Khomeini to take control, this change would have happened? It definitely would not have.
We must avoid misunderstandings. Iranians should understand that, specifically following this stage, sustaining strong ties with international powers will be crucial.
Did the United States get involved in Germany following World War II? West Germany was formed, and the nation was eventually given back to the Germans.
Euronews: During our last conversation, you highlighted Russia’s involvement and mentioned that Moscow holds considerable sway over Iran and is unlikely to easily abandon it. If a major change were to happen in Iran, would Russia accept it so easily? Some Iranian officials think they can endure the remaining three years of Trump’s administration by adopting a strategy of “strategic patience,” backed by China and Russia. How feasible is this approach?
Naghibzadeh: Firstly, the belief that they can easily get through the next three years is unrealistic. Secondly, in my opinion, the matter concerning Russia will be addressed at the topmost level.
In other words, the United States would provide certain benefits to Russia in return for Russia’s departure from Iran. Once this happens, Russia’s influence would be significantly reduced, allowing these developments to occur.
Nevertheless, Russia will not entirely cut ties with Iran and may seek to re-engage through different means in the future. However, I think that during these events, the Americans would first notify the Russians before taking any specific action.