Trump’s call for regime change in Iran sparks confusion after U.S. airstrikes
TOI World Desk | TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Jun 23, 2025, 23:05 IST
After US strikes on Iran's nuke sites, Trump hints at possible "regime change"
( Image credit : ANI )
Following U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, Donald Trump's remarks about regime change have stirred controversy, contradicting official U.S. policy. While administration officials downplay any broader agenda beyond disrupting Iran's nuclear program, Trump's comments, echoed by Netanyahu, raise concerns about escalating tensions and potential miscalculations, prompting warnings from both domestic and international actors.
The United States' recent military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have reignited debate over Washington’s long-term intentions in the region, with former President Donald Trump’s remarks fueling speculation that regime change in Tehran may be back on the agenda. The comments appear to contradict official U.S. policy, prompting mixed signals and raising concerns about escalating tensions with Iran.
In a post on Truth Social following the airstrikes, Trump wrote, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” Though the former president stopped short of explicitly calling for the overthrow of Iran’s leadership, his message was widely interpreted as a direct endorsement of such an outcome.
This statement marked a notable departure from Trump’s earlier stance, which had criticized previous U.S. efforts to forcibly change governments in the Middle East. The timing of his post—just days after coordinated U.S. strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities—appeared to signal a potential shift in his strategic thinking.
Trump’s comments were echoed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long advocated for a tougher approach to Tehran. Netanyahu indicated that regime change, while not an explicit goal, could be an inevitable consequence of sustained international pressure on Iran.
Despite the rhetoric, top U.S. administration officials moved quickly to downplay any suggestions of a broader agenda. Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth all emphasized that the military action was focused solely on disrupting Iran’s nuclear program—not on toppling its government.
“We don’t want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program. That’s what the president set us out to do,” Vance said during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Secretary Rubio reinforced that message on Face the Nation, saying, “What we are focused on is not the changing of the regime. If [Iran] remains committed to becoming a nuclear power, it could imperil the survival of the regime. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.”
Defense Secretary Hegseth added that the operation was “never intended to be about altering the regime,” and insisted the strikes were limited and exclusively targeted nuclear infrastructure.
The conflicting narratives have triggered concern both at home and abroad. Within the Republican Party, several non-interventionist lawmakers warned that a clear, consistent policy is needed to avoid unintended escalation in the Middle East. Meanwhile, international observers noted that such ambiguity could undermine diplomatic efforts and increase the risk of miscalculation by either side.
Iranian officials quickly seized on Trump’s remarks as evidence of U.S. hostility toward their government. In a strongly worded statement, Tehran condemned the strikes as a violation of international law and warned of severe consequences. Iranian leaders accused the U.S. of crossing a “very big red line” and vowed to retaliate, raising fears of a widening conflict in the region.
As the situation develops, the White House faces the challenge of managing a volatile post-strike environment while containing political fallout from Trump’s remarks. Whether the former president’s words were a strategic signal or a rhetorical flourish remains unclear—but the stakes, both diplomatic and military, have undeniably been raised.
In a post on Truth Social following the airstrikes, Trump wrote, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” Though the former president stopped short of explicitly calling for the overthrow of Iran’s leadership, his message was widely interpreted as a direct endorsement of such an outcome.
This statement marked a notable departure from Trump’s earlier stance, which had criticized previous U.S. efforts to forcibly change governments in the Middle East. The timing of his post—just days after coordinated U.S. strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities—appeared to signal a potential shift in his strategic thinking.
Trump’s comments were echoed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long advocated for a tougher approach to Tehran. Netanyahu indicated that regime change, while not an explicit goal, could be an inevitable consequence of sustained international pressure on Iran.
Despite the rhetoric, top U.S. administration officials moved quickly to downplay any suggestions of a broader agenda. Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth all emphasized that the military action was focused solely on disrupting Iran’s nuclear program—not on toppling its government.
“We don’t want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program. That’s what the president set us out to do,” Vance said during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Secretary Rubio reinforced that message on Face the Nation, saying, “What we are focused on is not the changing of the regime. If [Iran] remains committed to becoming a nuclear power, it could imperil the survival of the regime. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.”
Defense Secretary Hegseth added that the operation was “never intended to be about altering the regime,” and insisted the strikes were limited and exclusively targeted nuclear infrastructure.
The conflicting narratives have triggered concern both at home and abroad. Within the Republican Party, several non-interventionist lawmakers warned that a clear, consistent policy is needed to avoid unintended escalation in the Middle East. Meanwhile, international observers noted that such ambiguity could undermine diplomatic efforts and increase the risk of miscalculation by either side.
Iranian officials quickly seized on Trump’s remarks as evidence of U.S. hostility toward their government. In a strongly worded statement, Tehran condemned the strikes as a violation of international law and warned of severe consequences. Iranian leaders accused the U.S. of crossing a “very big red line” and vowed to retaliate, raising fears of a widening conflict in the region.
As the situation develops, the White House faces the challenge of managing a volatile post-strike environment while containing political fallout from Trump’s remarks. Whether the former president’s words were a strategic signal or a rhetorical flourish remains unclear—but the stakes, both diplomatic and military, have undeniably been raised.