White House emphasised strikes were not about regime change. Then Trump logged on to social media
US President Donald Trump has by and large convinced his leadership team, and his followers, that striking Iran’s nuclear facilities met the remit of “America First” foreign policy.
While there were some high-profile doubters among the MAGA faithful, most notably former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, they were outnumbered by those prepared to accept that a limited military intervention was justified to disable an existential threat to the United States and the world.
US President Donald Trump in the White House situation room at the weekend.Credit: AP
That was no doubt bolstered by Trump’s resolute characterisation of the operation as a devastating success, to which his supporters were only too willing to subscribe, despite the damage assessment still being under way.
There were exceptions. Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky for the past 13 years, said Trump’s attack was unconstitutional because only Congress had the power to authorise war. He also went on CNN and cast doubt on Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were obliterated with one fell swoop.
“ ‘Three bombings to neutralise Iran’ may turn out to be the 2025 version of ‘two weeks to slow the spread’,” Massie said, referring to early COVID-19 pandemic advice that turned out to be wildly misguided.
Others, such as right-wing activist and commentator Candace Owens, have labelled Trump’s move a betrayal. One of Owens’ X posts denouncing Israel’s “bloodlust” and calling its actions “demonic” was cited by Iranian state television.
Meanwhile, the president has been praised by foreign policy hawks such as Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, and the editorial board of News Corp’s Wall Street Journal, long seen as aligning with the views of the GOP establishment.
Defending Trump’s intervention on the Sunday morning talk shows, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were emphatic: Trump had always been clear Iran could not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and this was a targeted strike fulfilling that aim.
The US was not seeking regime change, they said explicitly. This would not become another Iraq War.
But they also indicated the campaign was not singularly about nuclear weapons. Iran had to stop funding terrorism, Vance said. It could not threaten its neighbours. It had to reintegrate into the global community.
And just hours later, Trump muddied the waters substantially with a typically stream-of-consciousness social media post.
“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!!!” Trump wrote.
It was a flippant contribution and, in many ways, stating the obvious. What American president in the past 46 years – since the fall of the puppet shah in the Iranian Islamic Revolution – would not have welcomed regime change in Tehran?
Trump is not about to conduct a military campaign with such an objective in mind. But it could flow from the combined effects of the US and Israel’s strikes, Iran’s depleted leadership and its severely weakened regional proxies, runaway inflation and a restless populace.
As Eric Edelman, a former US undersecretary for defence policy under George W. Bush, wrote in Foreign Affairs two days ago, Iran’s ageing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been “comprehensively humbled”.
Iranians in Tehran protest against Donald Trump and the US strikes on Sunday.Credit: Getty Images
Iranians were unlikely to be unsympathetic, he said, and in past demonstrations had blamed the regime rather than outsiders for their predicament. “Another major protest movement will undoubtedly arise,” he predicted.
Israel, seeing this as its best opportunity to topple the regime, will be looking for support. Trump, who has already boasted of working in lock-step with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would not be able to resist claiming credit should things move in that direction, and may even be tempted to help.
But such ongoing involvement, whether militarily or though sanctions or covert operations, carries risks for Americans. There are already reports the Iranians threatened to unleash terrorist “sleeper cells” in the US in retaliation for the weekend strikes. The US has vast assets and tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East. And the State Department has issued a worldwide alert for Americans outside the US to exercise caution.
A conflict escalation that endangers Americans would be bad for Trump. He is operating with enormous goodwill from his base after pulling off “the greatest political comeback in history”. But it is not limitless, as the backlash of the past few days has shown.
Trump’s instincts here are complicated. He is emboldened by success, including Israel’s. He is desperate for the Nobel Peace Prize, and recently posted a rant about how he is unlikely to ever get one, no matter what he does. He is willing to bully allies who challenge him and says he alone gets to define what “America First” means.
Brett McGurk, a former national security adviser to multiple presidents and the Middle East co-ordinator under former president Joe Biden, said Trump should cast aside any ambitions of regime change.
“We can all hope that this regime, which has so much American blood on its hands, ultimately ends up in the dustbin of history – but that’s up to the Iranian people,” he told CNN. “Let’s not mission-creep. Stay focused.”
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.