On July 13, 2026, the New York Times reporters Mark Mazzetti, Julian Barnes, Farnaz Fassihi, and Ronen Bergman published an article titled “Inside Israel’s Secret Operation to Cultivate Ahmadinejad.” This is the second article these authors publish about an alleged Israeli plan to bring about regime change in Iran by installing former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the country’s ruler. The first article on this topic was published on May 19, 2026.
Even if Israel did try to recruit Ahmadinejad, the Times’ reporting comes across as deeply flawed. The July report raises three major questions regarding the plausibility of several claims, authors’ sources, and the potential detrimental real-world consequences of the authors’ May article.
The authors claim that Israel saw Ahmadinejad as a viable replacement for the ayatollahs, one who would be more favorable to Israel and the West. They suggest that although Ahmadinejad’s past includes calls to wipe Israel off the map and engaging in Holocaust denial, he has recently changed and become friendlier to the West. Ahmadinejad has also consistently criticized the regime in recent years, which in turn placed him under surveillance and assigned him “bodyguards” who were essentially Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members watching over him.
But here are three key reasons why the Times’ story should be treated with heavy skepticism.
It’s Implausible
A key piece of evidence, in the eyes of the reporters, consists of two trips Ahmadinejad made in 2024 and 2025 to Hungary, a close ally of Israel. Ostensibly, the purpose was to visit a Hungarian university. However, the authors claim that the real purpose was to arrange meetings between Ahmadinejad and Israeli intelligence operatives.
The opening paragraphs of the July article state that a Hungarian official called the university rector and gave him a glimpse into the secret Israeli plan:
Readers are thus being asked to believe that a top-secret, complex, and risky intelligence operation was casually revealed to an everyday civilian, who was then allowed to reveal all to the press (and could just as easily have shared this information with an Iranian embassy). The authors never explain the implausible recklessness they allege, nor how the plan was kept secret until now despite supposedly being entrusted to a chatty university official.
Dubious Sourcing
As with the authors’ May report, the July article demonstrates issues with sourcing. Many important sources are anonymous. Some are described merely as “people with knowledge of what occurred” – which suggests these sources do not have firsthand knowledge.
The only Israeli source mentioned is Tamir Hayman, a former IDF intelligence official who retired two years before the war and three years before the first alleged meeting in Hungary.
Hayman spoke to PBS about an apparent regime change plan in May and said Ahmadinejad was a part of it. The authors’ decision to use this interview is highly problematic since it cannot be seriously considered as corroborating evidence. Given its timing, dynamics, and content, it is very possible that the Times’ prior report tainted the interview. Even worse, what Hayman said regarding the reported Ahmadinejad plan did not actually support the authors’ argument.
As the authors themselves note, PBS interviewed Hayman after the Times had already published the May report. Further, Hayman discusses Ahmadinejad’s alleged role only after he is asked specifically about the Times’ report. Hayman never said Israel planned or even discussed using Ahmadinejad for regime change. He never mentioned any officials debating this possibility. All he said was that there was a sequence of events that were supposed to take place, of which Ahmadinejad’s crowning was a part.
Crucially, this is simply a restatement of what the Times had already reported. Namely, the dynamics of the interview and the content of his response show that Hayman was answering the question about the report simply by repeating what the Times said – not sharing personal knowledge about an actual or hypothetical plan.
Why should readers trust vague sources referred to only as “people”? How can the authors and readers be certain they are not being manipulated by these sources? How can the authors be sure their May report did not taint Hayman’s interview? And why use his interview as supporting evidence at all?
The Potential Human Toll
In the May report, the authors write that an Israeli airstrike on Ahmadinejad’s residence was meant to free him from his “bodyguards.” Ahmadinejad survived but supposedly became “disillusioned” with the regime change plan and disappeared. His location and condition were reported as “unknown.”
But in the July article, it is alleged that Ahmadinejad is being held by the IRGC, “now that Iran has learned about much of his interactions with Israel.” (Emphasis added). The authors continue: “After the Israeli strike this year that initially freed Mr. Ahmadinejad from surveillance by the Guards, Iran’s intelligence agencies began investigating and piecing together his connection to Israel, according to the four officials.”
The timeline the authors themselves construct raises important ethical questions.
Did the Times’ own May report help the regime build the case against Ahmadinejad? It appears that the Iranian regime benefits directly from media discussion of this regime change plan. Ahmadinejad has long been a thorn in the regime’s side, as the authors themselves acknowledge.
With reports of his alleged central role in a plan to topple the regime, the Ayatollahs now have a convenient excuse to act against Ahmadinejad in ways they could not have done before due to his popularity. The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood, whom the authors cite in their May article, wrote on May 22, 2026 – three days after the Times broke the story:
… One should consider the story itself and its confirmation by U.S. officials. If they were once fond of Ahmadinejad, these officials’ attitude must have changed, because the predictable consequence of their reporting will be grim for Ahmadinejad and anyone tied to him. …
Working with Ahmadinejad was until recently grounds for suspicion by the regime. Now that he is an accused foreign asset, it might become grounds for much worse, possibly even execution.
Wood seems to place the blame on the officials. But the question remains: Is the Times unwittingly providing justification for the regime to engage in further suppression and violence?
This question also raises the issue of logic and the possibility that the Times created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consider the following theory: By reporting on the alleged intelligence operation, the Times either aroused the Iranian regime’s suspicion or gave them an excuse to target an internal opponent. The journalists then used the regime’s reaction – which they themselves stoked – to retroactively support their original claims.
The New York Times’ Ahmadinejad story in May already suffered from serious issues; this second report only raises further doubts.