Here's a tricky geopolitical puzzle: what if you launch military strikes aimed at changing a regime, but you end up just swapping out the figurehead for an even more entrenched security apparatus? That's one of the scenarios the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has been weighing, according to people briefed on the intelligence. The assessment, drafted over the past two weeks, suggests that even if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were removed, the country could still be led by hardline figures from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Think of it as changing the CEO but leaving the entire, powerful board of directors—the ones who really run the security state—firmly in place.

This isn't just an academic exercise for spies and diplomats. This risk is colliding with the very real, immediate concerns of the global market. The recent assault has jolted energy trading and put the Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly 20% of global oil supply moves—right at the center of everyone's supply fears. It's the classic case of geopolitical strategy meeting the cold, hard reality of tanker traffic and barrel prices.

The CIA's work product, according to reports, didn't pick a single outcome as most likely. Instead, it mapped multiple paths for Iran after a potential U.S. intervention. One of those paths involved IRGC-linked figures stepping into power, a shift that would essentially keep Iran's security apparatus as the core of the state. It's a scenario that suggests the deep state might be deeper and more resilient than the top leadership.

Energy Markets Brace For Supply Disruption

Meanwhile, over in the trading pits, people are focused on chokepoints and cargoes. Oil traders were already nervous about the Strait of Hormuz because Iran sits opposite key Gulf producers there. Any widening conflict could interrupt tanker traffic, and some large oil companies and major trading firms have already paused crude and refined-product movements through the corridor. That's tightening near-term supply logistics before a single extra missile is fired.

Brent crude settled near $73 a barrel on Friday and was up about 20% for the year before the weekend escalation. So, prices were already elevated heading into this. Capital Economics economist William Jackson wrote that even if fighting stays limited, Brent could drift toward $80. A more severe disruption? That could push it toward $100. Jackson also estimated that a prolonged supply hit could add roughly 0.6 to 0.7 percentage points to global inflation. That's a serious concern for central banks already wrestling with sticky price pressures. In Singapore, OCBC strategist Christopher Wong told Reuters, "The strike raises geopolitical risk premia as markets head into Monday's open," and he flagged potential upside gaps for gold alongside firmer oil. When oil jumps, gold often gets a ride too, as everyone looks for safe places to park money.

Could Military Strikes Ignite A Regime Change?

Back to the spycraft. The CIA's scenario planning examined how military action might—or might not—translate into actual leadership change inside the Islamic Republic. The IRGC is viewed as a potential beneficiary of turmoil, not necessarily a casualty of it. The agency's analysis was shared in the run-up to Saturday's operation and was framed as a range of possibilities, not a firm forecast.

The political backdrop here is noisy. Donald Trump has publicly signaled interest in a different government in Tehran, though without laying out who Washington sees as a viable successor leadership. Inside the U.S. government, the decision to strike followed weeks of debate. U.S. officials also pursued nuclear diplomacy in parallel, but talks in Geneva didn't produce an agreement. During a briefing to the congressional "Gang of Eight" last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that an operation was probable, while emphasizing that Trump retained the option to step back should negotiations prove successful. According to reports, two people familiar said Rubio updated the group again on Friday night, signaling the attack could begin within hours even as Trump retained discretion to halt it. It's the ultimate "we might, but we also might not" diplomatic dance, with trillion-dollar markets hanging on every word.

Strategic Leadership Shift Amid Rising Tensions

On the other side, Iran isn't just sitting still. The context is underscored by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s recent elevation of Ali Larijani to a de facto crisis manager role, as Iran prepares for potential conflict with the U.S. This move has raised the stakes for negotiations surrounding a nuclear deal. With President Donald Trump issuing a 10-to-15-day ultimatum for a resolution, Iran is employing heightened military readiness and internal governance strategies to maintain stability amid escalating tensions.

Larijani’s new position as head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council—a role that includes directing crackdowns on dissent and coordinating with international allies—reflects a significant shift in leadership dynamics. It's a move that could heavily influence Iran’s response to any U.S. military actions. This backdrop amplifies the geopolitical risk for energy markets, particularly as oil prices surge on fears of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. So, while the CIA runs models on who might be in charge, Iran is already reshuffling its deck, putting a seasoned operator in a key seat to manage whatever comes next. It's a high-stakes game where the markets are keeping score in dollars per barrel, and the intelligence agencies are keeping score in scenarios and contingencies. And for now, both sides are preparing for outcomes that might look very different from what anyone originally intended.