The Question is: Does Iran really need to replace Khamenei?

I mean, they have a president, and he's still alive. Khamenei was in theory just a religious leader, though he had massive power and influence beyond that. The president could take over the political power from Khamenei and be done with it. The question would probably be more about his succession, as Khamenei had a hand in selecting the persons who were allowed to run in the first place, so this could be widened.

Reza Pahlavi is pretty popular by dissidents of Khamenei both inside and out of Iran - though certainly not with the same powers as his dad had, rather either as a president or a constitutional monarch like those in Europe.

Either would be fine by me: As a constitutional monarch he wouldn't wield much power either way and if he can get elected to the office of president in an open and fair election, then he would have earned the position.

It reportedly was Khamenei that forbid the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei maintained a long-standing public stance against nuclear weapons, issuing a
fatwa in the early 2000s declaring their development and use "haram" (forbidden). He consistently argued that such weapons contradict Islamic principles and are unnecessary for Iran's security.

True or not, Iran has reportedly been weeks away from Nuclear weapons for decades.

The IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran to have over 60%+ enriched uranium (back in early-mid 2021) (last allowed visit by iran).
Then they detected "particles" nearby enrichment plants of over 83% in 2023.
In 2025 they suddenly had stockpiled more than 400 Kg of enriched uranium (over 60%).
latest intelligence is they have over 450 kg now.

At ~90% enrichment you can make a modern day nuke.
(you can make one with lower %, but its effect won't be as drastic, and will need more material (kg))

Also you need around 25kg to make a functional nuke.
~450 kg is enough to make ~18 war heads (if enriched to 90%).
if they settle for making a dirty / poorly made nuke, at like 60-70%, they would need like ~40kg each.
Still enough to make 10 such weapons.


You only need 3-5% enrichment for a nuclear power plant to work.   
If they were not trying for nukes, why did they enrich uranium that high?
Why are they not allowing scientists that do these "check-ups" access anymore?
So like all the data is now from traitors and spies, and like satellite detection ect.

Esp. after being told, not to do so. That them having nukes would not be allowed.

 
So can we stop the "they were not trying to make nukes" theories? 
or the "they have been years away from making them, forever" ?

They where obviously going ahead with it, and were getting closer as time went by.

*edit:

I just wanted to say that the US probably didn't want it to come to this.
They tried striking a deal with them, first (before this strike).

They did everything they could to slow down or disrupt their research, over the years.
Ei. fed them faulty intel, hardware, software hacks, assassinated a few of their researchers.
Iran kept at it, and were still progressing though slowly. 

You know that is PRECISELY what the Quran says?

Read Quran 78:33 for the details...

The Question is: Does Iran really need to replace Khamenei?

I mean, they have a president, and he's still alive. Khamenei was in theory just a religious leader, though he had massive power and influence beyond that. The president could take over the political power from Khamenei and be done with it. The question would probably be more about his succession, as Khamenei had a hand in selecting the persons who were allowed to run in the first place, so this could be widened.

Reza Pahlavi is pretty popular by dissidents of Khamenei both inside and out of Iran - though certainly not with the same powers as his dad had, rather either as a president or a constitutional monarch like those in Europe.

Either would be fine by me: As a constitutional monarch he wouldn't wield much power either way and if he can get elected to the office of president in an open and fair election, then he would have earned the position.

It reportedly was Khamenei that forbid the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei maintained a long-standing public stance against nuclear weapons, issuing a
fatwa in the early 2000s declaring their development and use "haram" (forbidden). He consistently argued that such weapons contradict Islamic principles and are unnecessary for Iran's security.

True or not, Iran has reportedly been weeks away from Nuclear weapons for decades.

Since at least 1992, Netanyahu has claimed Tehran was only 3–5 years away from producing a nuclear bomb.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons for over three decades, with specific warnings of an imminent, short-term threat—often mentioned as "months" or "weeks"—gaining prominence around 2012
https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/09/421552


Murdering Khamenei opens the door for Iran to actually develop nukes. No doubt his successors have been advising him that nukes are essential for defense. No better proof now.


Anyway it never was about nukes, it's about removing the last opposing force from the ME and weakening Iran-China and Iran-Russia relations. Turning Iran into another unstable Lebanon / Syria / Yemen / Iraq is Netanyahu's dream. Netanyahu already moved the goal posts from nukes to ballistic missiles, any nuclear deal would not have stopped this.


Trump knows he's close to death and has become a rambling fool only about his legacy, from begging for peace prices to leaving his mark on the White House by adding a ballroom, to creating a 'Board of Peace' and getting his son in law to turn Gaza into the 'Riviera of the ME'.

He's certainly leaving a legacy as a thief, war criminal and pedophile, destroying US soft power, the illusion of US democracy and likely the US economy as well. Trump will be remembered as the president that ended US hegemony. Yet for now he still has command of the world most powerful army. A very dangerous combination.

How many more countries will Trump bomb

Based on reported military actions since taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration has engaged in bombing or direct military strikes in at least 6-7 countries, including Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and Nigeria.

Cuba is likely next.

I am not right-wing in politics but i don't have problem U.S. bomb any country that helps fascists Putin And Chinese Goverment.
They oppress and kill many people.

I am not right-wing in politics but i don't have problem U.S. bomb any country that helps fascists Putin And Chinese Goverment.
They oppress and kill many people.