Strategies of Hope and Death: the US Foreign Policy Establishment Banks on Things Breaking Washington’s Way Once Leaders of China, Iran, and Russia Eventually Die 

Way back in 2001 at the dawn of what was to be the “American Century,” the RAND Corporation noted that “…the demise, capture, or incapacitation of an enemy leader typically does not result in a favorable change in enemy policy or behavior.”

Yet Washington think tank landia continues to argue that on all fronts the US and its vassals simply need  to keep up the pressure until Russian President Vladimir Putin dies. Until Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dies. And until Chinese President Xi Jinping dies or passes power. There is a whole cottage industry of experts pontificating on how US goals to “democratize” these countries could succeed once their current rulers die—either from natural causes or by assassination.

Washington’s proxies certainly have the green light. Israel went after Khamenei. Iran’s previous president Ebrahim Raisi died in a suspicious helicopter crash on a return trip from Israel’s partner in crime Azerbaijan. Ukraine has tried to kill Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The RAND observation from 2001 might remain true, but the en vogue argument now appears to be that the US doesn’t necessarily need a stable and friendly puppet government. It will find ways to feast on any whiff of a succession battle.

Let’s look at these hopeful strategies of death.

Russia 

Last year, RFE/RL admitted the failure of Project Ukraine in its own quiet way. In a piece titled ‘Crowdsourcing Russia’s Future: Poll Of Experts Considers What Comes After Putin’ it is noted that rather than Ukraine triggering Putin’s downfall, it has strengthened his position and that the most likely path of his exit is through death of old age.

Systema —RFE/RL’s Russian “investigative” unit—spoke to 40 Russian “experts,” almost all of whom listed this among the most probable paths for Russia, while eight listed it as the only possible route.

So Project Ukraine mission failed, and there’s no need to keep funding the meat grinder, right? Not so fast!

Who knows when Putin’s death might come, and in the meantime the US needs to keep its Ukraine hail mary options open, argues former senior CIA analyst and Principal Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council Peter Schroeder, writing at Foreign Affairs that, “what is certain is that, at some point, he will die.” More:

There is only one viable option for ending the war in Ukraine on terms acceptable to the West and Kyiv: waiting Putin out. Under this approach, the United States would hold the line in Ukraine and maintain sanctions against Russia while minimizing the level of fighting and amount of resources expended until Putin dies or otherwise leaves office. Only then will there be a chance for a lasting peace in Ukraine.

Well, sure, but what does that guarantee Washington? Absolutely nothing. It could increase the odds of a more hardline government:

Russia self-destructed twice last century, sure. But not because Nicholas II died — he abdicated.

Gorbachev wasn’t killed. He got locked in a cuck corner and lived 30 more years.

The real heuristic: Russia dies when its ruler cucks out.

— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) August 3, 2025

What the above notes is the same observation made by RAND a quarter century ago, and yet some combination of military-industrial-tech complex money, delusion and desperation keep Washington dancing to the same tune.

China

Another more recent piece in Foreign Affairs makes a similar argument about China and its President Xi Jinping.

It is penned by Tyler Jost, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, and Daniel C. Mattingly, an associate Professor of Political Science at Yale University who focuses on “authoritarian regimes.”

They begin by listing all the horrible acts committed by Xi, from purges and suppression of dissent to encouraging “wolf warrior” diplomats and state involvement in the economy. What is the poor ol’ US supposed to do with such a mad man? Simply, keep on doing what’s it doing, of course. Wait and bait, we could call it:

Soon, however, everything will start to change. As the CCP elite begins the search for a leader to replace the 72-year-old Xi, China is transitioning from a phase defined by power consolidation to one defined by the question of succession. For any authoritarian regime, political succession is a moment of peril, and for all its strengths, the CCP is no exception. 

Jost and Mattingly proceed to salivate at the potential damage a succession battle could do to the Middle Kingdom, including such fantasies like a failed invasion of Taiwan that leaves China an international pariah. They conclude that it all just might break Washington’s way:

Instead of meddling, the United States should let the process unfold while watching it closely. Although the party’s geopolitical assessments and ideological convictions are bigger than Xi, it is not unreasonable to expect a course correction from the post-Xi years, in which a more moderate and temperate leader emerges—someone who is not stridently nationalist and who can break down the walls that the current leadership has built around the country.

Indeed, in the past, the CCP has corrected course through the succession process. There is a hopeful lesson for the coming years in the transition from Mao’s radical socialism to Deng’s more pragmatic policy of reform and opening. “If we don’t reform, the party is at a dead end,” Deng famously said. Xi’s successor might come to the same conclusion.

Perhaps this theme of waiting for inevitable deaths and maintaining a hands-off approach is a way of acceptance in the US that it cannot control the world. If it were to become reality, that would be welcome.

I’m not sure I like those odds. A recent mega-report from the Hudson Institute is more likely to accurately describe what a US attempt to destroy China would look like in the case of any destabilization upon Xi’s passing the baton.

The chapter “OSS in China Again: The Role of US Special Operations Forces after CCP Collapse,” written by an anonymous author, dreams of Xi’s exit causing chaos—upheaval that the US would rush to exploit. Here are some more juicy snippets from the three phases, starting with a Phase 0:

Long before the CCP’s collapse, US government agencies should launch a steady campaign of strategic messaging, public diplomacy, information operations, and covert influence. Their aim should be to reinforce the partitions between the party and the state, the party and the armed forces, and the party and the people. These partitions, however slight, will prove instrumental to a tenable state, military, and society after the fall—maximizing the likelihood that the party’s collapse does not also bring down the rest of China with it. The capabilities of US special operations forces (US SOF) are well suited to this task, in concert with the US Department of State and other government agencies. Together, they should conduct a steady campaign of what George Kennan called political warfare, growing in scale and intensity as the fall of the CCP looms.

…During this campaign, the US SOF—including US intelligence agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Special Activities Center and other elements—will develop surrogate networks, train partner forces, enable cyber operations, and support other clandestine methods to deliver truthful information to populations inside China. 

If recent history is any indication, US spooks might have a tough time with this operation. Let’s recall that more than 10 years ago China uncovered and crippled CIA networks in the country, killing many sources. Around the same time Beijing also began exposing American agents in Europe and Africa. Nonetheless, onto Phase 1:

As soon as possible following regime collapse, the US government should surge diplomats and defense attachés to the US embassy in Beijing and consulates in Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenyang, and Wuhan, along with roughly 20 US SOF at each location. Through existing channels, US diplomats and defense attachés should establish crisis communications between the US ambassador and the provisional State Council, and between the US Department of Defense and the [Central Military Commission].

In these initial engagements, the United States should offer humanitarian assistance as the contingency requires, diplomatic recognition of the provisional central government of China, and an intelligence-sharing agreement to warn of opportunistic incursions along China’s land borders. It should propose three urgent lines of effort for the provisional government, which the newly formed Chinese military will carry out and US [Special Operations Forces] will assist: border security, humanitarian assistance in affected areas, and safeguarding of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and related material.

…Finally, US SOF should provide on-the-ground warning intelligence and options of last resort to prevent the proliferation of WMDs and related material. Joint contingency planning between the US government and the provisional central government of China should account for and secure key munitions stockpiles, facilities, and delivery platforms under the command and control of the provisional central government, including of sea-based nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Additional US SOF teams should accompany PLA Army and Rocket Force units to secure the most critical sites, provide early warning of imminent threats, and develop contingency plans to safeguard WMDs in an emergency. These plans should provide that, as a last resort, US SOF based outside China will conduct direct action missions to render WMDs and related materials safe. In its combined operations with US SOF—keeping watch over land borders, delivering humanitarian relief, averting the catastrophic proliferation of WMDs, buying time for a free and legitimate government to coalesce—the PLA will take up a noble calling in a new China and leave behind its former charge as the military arm of the CCP.

Bonkers stuff. There’s more, but you get the picture, and you could understand why the author wanted to remain anonymous. Arnaud Bertrand argues this increased, umm, “ambition” says a lot more about the lunatics in Washington than it does anything about China:

Witnessing the end of American primacy, some members of the imperial establishment are transforming themselves into a grotesque caricature of themselves, taking every toxic aspect of American foreign policy and amplifying it to absurd extremes, becoming more imperially ambitious and delusional than ever before, planning interventions of unprecedented scale and audacity, as if doubling down on their worst impulses might somehow restore their waning dominance.

Onto Tehran, where the “real men go.”

Iran

It’s another case in which US threats of military force carry little weight and decades of coercion have proved ineffective at toppling the government in Tehran. Rather than simply wait for the death of Khamenei, however, there is a hope in DC that the Israelis can assassinate him. The neocon Middle East Forum certainly hopes so—and not just Khamenei:

​​Ultimately, Khamenei’s death would pose an even greater challenge to the Islamic Republic’s stability than Ruhollah Khomeini’s passing in 1989. This would be especially true if he were killed alongside his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, whom many observers view as a potential successor.

Israel might have to assassinate even more, according to the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs:

…senior security officials say it is doubtful that the assassination of Khamenei and his son Mojtaba alone would destabilize the regime. According to them, Israel must eliminate not only Khamenei and Mojtaba, but also all members of the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts — about 100 individuals in total. Only a powerful blow to the ideological, political, and religious structure of the Islamic Republic will bring about its collapse.

The core leadership of Iran consists of:

• Ali Khamenei – the ultimate authority.
• Mojtaba Khamenei – the designated successor, closely linked to the IRGC and considered more radical than his father.
• The Guardian Council – preserves the Islamic identity of the state and blocks any constitutional reforms.
• The Assembly of Experts – appoints the Supreme Leader and grants religious legitimacy to the regime.

Security sources say that the Mossad and the IDF could carry out such an operation, and that there is a high probability it would lead to the regime’s collapse.

What could go wrong?

It’s worth remembering the above accounts are not from ostracized crackpots. They are from the foreign policy establishment and respected (by most) institutions of higher learning, and they are actively cheering for the collapse of governments that collectively cover about 1.6 billion people on earth and two of which possess vast nuclear arsenals.

And even scarier: a few of these policy prescriptions might actually represent progress as they at least don’t advocate for direct military confrontation, which could escalate to nuclear war. Squint and you could make the case that these scenarios of infighting in China, Iran, and Russia perhaps offer a creeping realization that all Washington’s tools of coercion are becoming useless against the above three targets and that the best option is waiting.

Unfortunately, advocating for patience doesn’t mean the crazies are giving up, just that they need to prepare for and pick their spots.