Trump’s Iran Strategy: A Break From Past US Regime Change Efforts
Trump’s Iran Gamble: A Departure From Past Regime Change Efforts
President Trump’s bid to topple Iran’s regime marks a sharp break from two decades of U.S. Intervention playbooks across multiple presidencies.
The big picture: Trump’s weekend strikes on Iran — and his explicit call for an uprising — diverge from how the U.S. Approached regime pressure in Iraq and Venezuela, historians inform Axios. The gamble signals a more unpredictable stretch of his foreign policy ahead as he openly threatens force elsewhere.
- The U.S. And Israel announced Saturday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, was killed in an Israeli strike — throwing the future of the country’s government into immediate uncertainty.
State of play: Trump announced military strikes against Iran on Saturday and vaguely called for Iranian people to overtake their government following months of their demanding a regime change amid worsening economic conditions.
- The attacks were a result of failed diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear weapon supply as tensions mounted between the countries through Trump’s second term.
After announcing the operation Saturday, Trump addressed Iranians in a video: ". When we are finished, capture over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations."
- Trump exclusively told Axios the "off ramps" he envisions: "I can move long and take over the whole thing, or complete it in two or three days and tell the Iranians: ‘See you again in a few years if you start rebuilding [your nuclear and missile programs]."
Reality check: Trump’s Iran play is different than the U.S. Invasion of Iraq in 2003 under former President George W. Bush and the seizure of Venezuela’s leader Nicolás Maduro in January — two instances where the U.S. Took a more direct hand in dismantling a government’s power structure.
- "Iran is different from both of those conflicts," retired U.S. Army Colonel Peter Mansoor, professor of military history at The Ohio State University, tells Axios.
Both regime overthrows, the historians said, were done with future government infrastructure in mind — which is less clear in the Iran crisis so far.
- "As General David Petraeus remarked at the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, ‘Tell me how this ends,’" Mansoor said.
A Novel Approach to Regime Change?
The recent joint U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran, culminating in the reported death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, represent a significant departure from the strategies employed by previous administrations when attempting to influence or overthrow foreign regimes. Whereas the U.S. Has a long history of intervention in the affairs of other nations, the current approach under President Trump appears to prioritize a swift disruption of the existing power structure coupled with a direct appeal to the Iranian populace, rather than a prolonged military occupation or a carefully orchestrated transition of power. This approach, as outlined in reports from Axios and other news outlets, diverges notably from the interventions in Iraq and Venezuela.
The Iraq Precedent: A Full-Scale Invasion
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, initiated under President George W. Bush, stands as a stark contrast to the current situation in Iran. The Iraq War involved the deployment of approximately 200,000 American ground troops, as reported by the New York Times in March 2003. Baghdad fell within weeks, and Saddam Hussein was captured less than nine months later, in December 2003. The stated objectives of the U.S.-led coalition included removing Hussein from power and eliminating alleged weapons of mass destruction. Following the initial military phase, the U.S. Played a central role in establishing an interim government and overseeing the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, a process that ultimately took years to complete, with U.S. Forces remaining in the country until 2011. As military history professor David Kieran notes, the Iraq War exemplifies the potential pitfalls of assuming that replacing a country’s political leadership can be achieved quickly and easily.
Venezuela: A Targeted Capture, But With Oversight
The U.S. Approach to Venezuela in January of this year, while involving a direct action – the capture of President Nicolás Maduro – differed from the all-out invasion seen in Iraq. The operation was framed as a law enforcement action based on U.S. Indictments against Maduro and his perceived illegitimacy following the 2018 Venezuelan election. Privately, White House officials reportedly viewed Maduro’s removal as a key objective. The U.S. Also gained de facto control of Venezuelan oil production, which holds the world’s largest crude reserves. However, unlike the situation in Iran, the U.S. Indicated an intention to oversee the transition of power and future elections in Venezuela, suggesting a longer-term commitment to shaping the country’s political future.
Iran: A Call for Internal Uprising
The current strategy toward Iran, however, appears to eschew both large-scale military occupation and direct control over the transition process. Instead, President Trump has called on the Iranian people to “take over your government,” signaling a belief that internal pressure and popular uprising are the keys to regime change. This approach is markedly different from the previous interventions, where the U.S. Actively sought to dismantle the existing power structure and install a new government. The lack of a clear plan for what would replace the current regime, as noted by historians, raises questions about the long-term viability of this strategy.
What Happens Next?
The immediate aftermath of the strikes against Iran remains uncertain. The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has created a power vacuum, and the succession process, governed by Iran’s constitution, is underway. A council of clerics is tasked with selecting a new supreme leader, but the disruption caused by the strikes has thrown the typical chain of command into disarray. International reactions have been mixed, with China expressing “high concern” and Russia condemning the attack as an act of aggression.
As of Saturday afternoon, reports indicate at least 200 people have been killed and over 700 injured in the strikes, according to the Associated Press . Iranian officials claim Israeli strikes hit a girls’ school, resulting in the deaths of 53 students and injuries to 63 more. Iran has retaliated against U.S. Bases, with Iranian foreign minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi stating that “Iran will punish those who kill our children.”
The success of Trump’s gamble hinges on whether the Iranian people will respond to his call for uprising and whether a viable alternative to the current regime can emerge. As Kieran points out, the crucial question remains: “What would replace it?” The coming days and weeks will be critical in determining the future of Iran and the broader implications for regional stability.