A Free Iran Needs More Than Elections. The US Should Prepare for What Comes Next

As President Donald Trump increases pressure on the Islamic Republic through sanctions⁠, diplomacy, and deterrence, his administration should also prepare for a question that receives far less attention in Washington: What comes after the regime?

For decades, American policy has focused on managing the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions, regional proxies, and hostility toward the United States. That focus is understandable. Yet there has been far less discussion of what a democratic transition would actually require if political change comes to Iran.

Policymakers often assume that removing an authoritarian system is the difficult part. History suggests otherwise. The greater challenge is building the institutions that can replace it.

A free Iran will need elections, political parties, and leaders chosen by the Iranian people. But ballots alone cannot keep hospitals supplied, maintain water systems, enforce contracts, or ensure that public officials obey the law. Iran’s future will depend not only on who governs, but on how the country is governed.

Iran already has scientists, engineers, physicians, entrepreneurs, academics, and experienced administrators. What it lacks is a system that consistently empowers them. A scientist cannot improve water management if inconvenient findings are suppressed. An engineer cannot protect infrastructure if contracts reward connections rather than competence. An entrepreneur cannot invest confidently when rules change without explanation or appeal. Talent matters. Institutions determine whether it produces lasting public benefits.

The World Bank’s research on governance⁠ helps explain why good ideas often fail. Exclusion, political capture, and patronage can prevent governments from turning plans into results. Effective governance requires institutions capable of implementing decisions fairly and consistently, not merely announcing them.

Washington has spent years preparing for the behavior of the Islamic Republic. It should spend more time understanding the plans of those seeking to replace it.

One Iranian-led effort deserves particular attention. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, a leading figure in Iran’s democratic opposition, has made reconstruction planning part of his strategy⁠ for a post-Islamic Republic Iran. The Iran Prosperity Project emerged from that initiative. Its published emergency-phase blueprint⁠ addresses the first 180 days following the regime’s fall, including continuity of government services, healthcare, water infrastructure, energy systems, economic stabilization, and protection of national assets.

Whether one agrees with every recommendation is beside the point. The important fact is that serious planning is taking place. While Americans debate how to pressure the regime, Iranian experts are already debating how to rebuild the country that comes after it.

These are precisely the practical challenges Washington should be studying. Rather than waiting for a crisis and improvising a response, American policymakers should familiarize themselves with existing Iranian-led planning efforts and identify areas where future cooperation could advance both Iranian and American interests. Doing so would not require choosing Iran’s future leaders. That choice belongs to the Iranian people. It would simply acknowledge that removing a dysfunctional system is not the same as replacing it with a successful one.

A transition that preserves essential services and establishes accountable institutions could reduce the risks of prolonged instability, humanitarian emergencies, mass migration, and costly foreign intervention. Predictable institutions could also create opportunities for lawful trade and investment, including for American businesses, should future conditions permit.

Preparing for that possibility now would give Washington better options than improvisation during a crisis.

Three areas deserve attention. American technical agencies and international partners should engage with Iranian specialists already studying continuity of essential services. Planning for hospitals, utilities, food systems, and water infrastructure cannot begin after a crisis has started. As a plant pathologist, I understand how easily expertise can be disconnected from execution. Recognizing a crop disease means little if laboratories lack supplies, farmers receive no guidance, or procurement systems fail. Institutions transform expertise into action.

The United States should also prepare transparent frameworks for any future reconstruction assistance. Open contracting, independent audits, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and accessible complaint mechanisms would protect both Iranian citizens and American taxpayers. Finally, Washington should support efforts that strengthen professional public administration under democratic authority. Technical appointments should rest on qualifications. Regulatory decisions should be transparent. Citizens should have meaningful avenues to challenge administrative decisions. Governments earn public trust through competence, not promises.

These proposals are not about imposing an American model on Iran. They are about recognizing that freedom becomes durable only when supported by institutions capable of delivering results.

For decades, the Islamic Republic has asked talented Iranians to adapt themselves to a dysfunctional system. A free Iran must do the opposite. It must build a system worthy of its people.

Elections will matter. Leadership will matter. But institutions will determine whether freedom succeeds.

Democracy will open the door.

Institutions will determine what comes through it.

Elham Golkhandan holds a PhD in plant pathology and has conducted postdoctoral research in microbiology at the University of Manitoba and research in bioinformatics and health informatics at Toronto Metropolitan University. Her experience combines scientific research with public-sector data analytics, regulatory compliance monitoring, data validation, and performance reporting. Her independent writing examines food security, agricultural sustainability, institutional reform, and the role of evidence in public decision-making. The views expressed are her own.