The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is believed to be holding Ahmadinejad at an undisclosed location after he left a safe house operated by Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency. Neither Iran’s government nor the Revolutionary Guard has publicly confirmed his detention, while Israel has made no official comment on the allegations.
The reported operation sought to cultivate Ahmadinejad as an intelligence asset and position him as a possible national leader if Iran’s political system collapsed. Israeli officials allegedly viewed the former president, once known for fierce anti-Israel rhetoric and Holocaust denial, as a figure capable of attracting support among poorer and socially conservative Iranians.
Contacts were said to have begun several years after Ahmadinejad fell out with Iran’s ruling establishment. His attempts to return to elected office were blocked by the Guardian Council in 2017, 2021 and 2024, deepening his estrangement from the clerical leadership and the institutions that had supported his rise.
The recruitment effort reportedly intensified from 2022, as Israeli intelligence officers assessed Ahmadinejad’s political ambitions and dissatisfaction with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad had increasingly presented himself as a critic of corruption, economic inequality and the concentration of power within Iran’s governing system.
Meetings with Israeli intermediaries and intelligence officials allegedly took place during overseas visits, including encounters in Guatemala and Hungary. Budapest emerged as a central location because of Israel’s close relationship with the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the opportunities offered by international conferences.
David Barnea, who headed Mossad during much of the alleged operation, reportedly met Ahmadinejad in Budapest and personally supervised aspects of the project. Israeli intelligence is also said to have covered travel and accommodation expenses connected with the contacts.
The plan, reportedly known as Operation Puss in Boots, envisaged installing a new administration after military attacks weakened Iran’s command structure. Ahmadinejad was considered useful because of his familiarity with the state, his populist credentials and his ability to communicate with constituencies suspicious of exiled opposition figures.
The operation nevertheless encountered resistance within Israel’s security establishment. Officials questioned whether a former president associated with the repression of the 2009 Green Movement could command legitimacy or advance Israel’s strategic interests. Others feared that his history of inflammatory statements about Israel would make any political arrangement unstable.
Ahmadinejad served as president from 2005 to 2013. His disputed re-election in 2009 triggered mass demonstrations across Iran and a violent crackdown by security forces. Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi were later placed under house arrest, while thousands of protesters and activists were detained.
His relationship with Khamenei deteriorated during his second term, particularly over ministerial appointments and the influence of his close ally Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei. After leaving office, Ahmadinejad adopted positions that challenged parts of the establishment and accused powerful institutions of corruption and mismanagement.
The alleged intelligence relationship has drawn particular attention because Ahmadinejad spent years portraying Israel as an illegitimate state and questioning the Holocaust. His presidency coincided with escalating international concern over Iran’s nuclear programme and repeated confrontations with Western governments.
Ahmadinejad was not publicly visible during the opening stages of the February conflict in which American and Israeli forces struck targets across Iran. An adviser initially said he was alive and unharmed, countering unverified social-media claims that he had been killed.
He was reportedly taken to a Mossad-controlled safe house after an attack on his Tehran residence. Accounts differ over whether the strike was intended to release him from existing restrictions, conceal his removal or protect him during the military campaign.
