Barely an hour after the first U.S. And Israeli missiles struck Iran on Saturday, President Donald Trump called for regime change, stating, “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny.” He urged the Iranian people to act, saying, “What we have is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.” The strikes, which targeted locations including near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, came after weeks of unsuccessful diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran, according to POLITICO.
The call for regime change echoes a long and often troubled history of U.S. Intervention in foreign governments. From Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s to Panama in 1989 and more recently in Venezuela, Washington’s attempts to influence political outcomes have frequently fallen short of their intended goals. As President Trump himself noted in 2016, and reiterated in a 2025 speech in Saudi Arabia, “We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change,” adding that “the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”
The current situation in Iran presents a complex landscape. While the Iranian economy is struggling and dissent exists, the regime has demonstrated a capacity for brutal suppression, as evidenced by a January crackdown on protests that resulted in thousands of deaths and arrests. Key military proxies and allies, such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, have been weakened but not eliminated. Sunday, Iranian state media confirmed the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei following the strikes.
The White House has not articulated a clear postwar vision for Iran. Jonathan Schanzer, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated that a successful outcome requires “a sense that there is no salvation for the regime as such, and that they will need to operate with the United States.” He questioned whether the U.S. Has been able to identify and cultivate pragmatic elements within the Iranian government, suggesting that “true believers” are unlikely to shift allegiances.
Historical precedents offer cautionary tales. In Latin America, U.S. Intervention, dating back to the Monroe Doctrine, has often led to violence and instability, as seen in Guatemala and Nicaragua, where U.S. Involvement contributed to prolonged civil conflicts and significant loss of life. Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow at Chatham House, noted that direct U.S. Involvement has rarely “resulted in long-term democratic stability.”
The recent events in Venezuela may offer a glimpse into the current administration’s approach. While Nicolás Maduro was captured by U.S. Forces and flown to the U.S. To face charges, Washington bypassed María Corina Machado, a prominent opposition figure, and signaled a willingness to work with Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former second-in-command. Schanzer suggested this approach may not constitute traditional “regime change,” but rather a shift in leadership within the existing structure.
As of Sunday, the situation remains fluid. Phillips O’Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, cautioned that while air power can damage a leadership, it cannot guarantee the emergence of a fresh, more favorable government. The potential for internal conflict within the Iranian regime remains uncertain, and the long-term consequences of the U.S. And Israeli strikes are yet to be seen.
