On March 1, 2026, President Donald Trump returned to the White House, seemingly unfazed by the chaos unfolding overseas. Fresh from a controversial military operation in Venezuela, he escalated his interventionist agenda by launching a significant military campaign against Iran, marking one of the largest military operations in recent years. This decision came shortly after a meeting of his “Board of Peace,” a coalition that includes Israel, ironically coinciding with their first foray into war.
The rationale behind this aggressive move remains murky. In a video message shared on Truth Social, Trump failed to provide a coherent justification for the preemptive strikes, especially given that Iran was engaged in negotiations with the U.S. regarding its nuclear program, negotiations that were reportedly making headway. Unlike the U.S., Iran had not exhibited any aggressive posturing that would warrant such a military response.
Instead of outlining clear objectives, Trump proposed a “decapitation strategy,” urging the Iranian populace to rise against their government. He called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and security forces to disarm and join the people, a directive that lacked practical guidance. How exactly were these forces supposed to lay down their arms? To whom would they surrender their weapons? The absence of a clear plan raised questions about the feasibility of such a grassroots uprising.
Among the opposition figures, Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah, emerged as a vocal advocate for regime change, positioning himself as a potential leader. However, it was telling that neither the U.S. nor Israel openly endorsed him as a replacement for the regime they were attempting to dismantle. There was no visible strategy to facilitate his return to Iran, reminiscent of Ayatollah Khomeini’s triumphant return in 1979.
The initial days of the conflict were marked by shocking developments, including the reported assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with other high-ranking officials. This unprecedented act led to mixed reactions within Iran—mourning among supporters of Khamenei and celebration among those who blamed him for the brutal suppression of protests earlier that year. Yet, rather than a popular uprising, a transitional council was quickly formed to assume leadership, highlighting the lack of a clear power vacuum or popular support for immediate regime change.
As the military campaign progressed, Trump announced a willingness to engage in dialogue with the newly formed council, suggesting that the U.S. was not pursuing a complete regime overhaul but rather a strategic adjustment. This shift in narrative raises critical questions about the objectives of the military action, especially given the casualties on both sides, including the deaths of U.S. service members and numerous Iranian civilians.
The war, characterized by its chaotic execution and shifting goals, has resulted in significant destruction, with reports of indiscriminate bombings affecting civilian infrastructure. Eyewitness accounts and videos depict the grim reality on the ground, where innocent lives are caught in the crossfire. The financial toll of the conflict is staggering, with estimates of billions spent on military operations and the loss of expensive military assets.
As the situation continues to evolve, it is evident that the war lacks a clear endpoint or achievable objectives. The only certainty is that, regardless of the outcome, Trump will likely proclaim a victory, framing the conflict as a success in his ongoing narrative of bringing peace through strength. The tragic irony remains that the very people he called upon to seize control of their government are the ones suffering the most from the violence unleashed in the name of regime change.
Reviewed by: News Desk
Edited with AI assistance + Human research
 Actually Change Any Regimes appeared first on The Intercept.){kind=link}