Context:

President Donald Trump's administration maintains that strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities are not a prelude to war and do not aim at regime change, although Trump's social media comments suggest otherwise. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasize a focus on Iran's nuclear program rather than replacing its government. Trump's rhetoric, however, implies support for regime change under certain conditions, reflecting historical US interventions in the Middle East. The US has a history of involvement in regime changes, from Iran’s 1953 coup to the Iraq invasions, with current actions seen as potentially leading to similar outcomes. While some, like former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, support the strikes, others caution against escalating tensions, highlighting the possibility of a prolonged, low-level conflict with Iran.

Dive Deeper:

• Despite Trump's administration stating that strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities do not signal war or aim for regime change, Trump's social media activity hinted at a desire for new leadership in Iran if the regime fails to abandon nuclear ambitions.

• Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stress that the military actions are targeted at Iran's nuclear program, not its government, countering Trump's rhetoric that questions the potential for regime change.

• Historically, the US has engaged in regime changes in Iran and other Middle Eastern nations, such as the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and the 1979 support for the Shah, paralleling current tensions with Iran.

• Following the September 11 attacks, the US toppled regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, with similar dynamics now unfolding in Iran, where Trump’s strikes have not been backed by evidence of imminent nuclear threats similar to the 2003 Iraq invasion.

• Critics like former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, while supporting the strikes, warn against simplistic comparisons to past invasions, noting that regime change in Iran would likely result from internal forces rather than a full-scale US intervention.

• Iran's response to US strikes has so far been measured, with intercepted missile attacks suggesting a preference for de-escalation, yet the potential for ongoing, low-level conflicts remains, as highlighted by experts like Richard Haass.

• The GOP under Trump diverges from traditional Republican foreign policy, focusing on nationalism and avoiding foreign wars, yet Trump's actions in Iran reveal internal divisions within his coalition about military intervention and regime change.