Before a packed room of Arab leaders last May, the president declared that “the era of American regime change was over.”
“In the end, the so-called nation builders destroyed far more nations than they built,” he said in Riyadh, mocking “Western interventionists who lecture you on how to live and how to run your affairs.”
Nine months later, he launched the largest US military operation the region had seen in two decades and called on them to “take their government into their own hands”, backed by US power. The military said on Sunday that three US soldiers were killed in the operation and five others were seriously wounded.
It was a deafening reversal for a politician whose rise has been fueled in part by American fatigue toward large-scale military interventions. For years, Trump has denounced Washington’s “endless wars” and warned against toppling foreign regimes by force — a message that formed the basis of the “America First” movement that won him the presidency twice.
President Donald Trump’s decision to give the go-ahead for “Operation Epic Fury” is attributed, according to government sources, to his growing frustration with Tehran’s refusal to agree to limits on its nuclear program, but also to his long-standing personal confrontations with the Iranian regime.
A decisive role is said to have been played by the belief formed after the January operation in Venezuela, that regime change does not necessarily entail a new “Iraq”.
Added to the equation was his desire to achieve in Iran something no US president has accomplished in nearly five decades. For months, his allies—from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Republican lawmakers—told him that Iran’s leadership was more vulnerable than ever, urging him to seize the opportunity to decapitate the regime.
The joint military operation with Israel resulted in the assassination of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as a number of top regime officials, marking a dramatic escalation in the region.
The strategy of quick removal of leaders
Buoyed by what he saw as the success of the US operation that toppled Venezuela’s strongman, Trump believed he had found a new “playbook” for intervention: quickly removing a hostile leader, securing political concessions and handing responsibility the next day to the country’s domestic forces, without open and long-term US involvement. This model, according to information, has also been discussed as a possible option for Cuba.
. In Venezuela, the US arrested Maduro without directly calling on the people to take power, opting instead for consultations with regime figures and promises of a gradual transition.
In the case of Iran, the elimination of Supreme Leader Khamenei and his close associates risks a generalized regional conflagration, with unpredictable consequences for the country’s stability and the risk of new American involvement in the Middle East. In addition, there are practical limitations: the US military is depleting its stockpile of interceptor missiles faster than it can replace them.
John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, has pushed for regime change in Iran for years. But Trump removed him due to disagreements and later called him a “war hawk”. Bolton said he was stunned by Saturday’s attacks: “I’m as surprised as anyone.”
The operation to decapitate the leadership of a country of 92 million will hardly give Trump the hit-and-go approach he prefers, according to Bolton.
Internal pressures, opinion polls and the bet of History
And while his most dramatic foreign intervention to date is underway, polls show that, just months before the 2026 midterm elections. In a recent Wall Street Journal poll, 53% believe he is getting involved in unnecessary foreign affairs instead of focusing on the economy.
Trump, however, does not seem willing to back down. In recent months he has become convinced that he can, by a show of overwhelming power, oust three of Washington’s most entrenched rivals — Venezuela, Cuba and Iran — within a single term.
Elliott Abrams, who served as a special envoy for Iran and Venezuela, said Trump wants to go down in history as a major figure. “If the regime changes in Cuba, it will be something that John F. Kennedy failed to do. And everything changes in the Middle East if the Islamic Republic we know since 1979 is removed.”
But by launching a sustained regime change operation in Iran, Trump has broken his long-standing rule of “we’re done and we’re moving on,” according to Abrams. In announcing Khamenei’s death, he left open a time horizon for “heavy and precise bombing” to continue “as long as necessary” for peace in the Middle East. US officials estimate the operation could take weeks.
In his second term, freed from the pressure of re-election and more familiar with the tools of military power, Trump appears more willing to use them as long as the deployment of ground forces is not required.
For him, the issue is also personal. His worldview was shaped by the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, which he invoked to justify the strikes. He has received death threats and assassination plots from Tehran. As the operation unfolded, he posted a link to an article accusing Iran of meddling in the 2020 and 2024 elections.
At the same time, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had warned that “nobody knows who will take over” if Khamenei falls, describing power in Iran as fragmented. CIA estimates said his death could lead to different scenarios, including a takeover by Revolutionary Guard hardliners.
Critics argue that the attack on Iran undermines his image as a “president of peace”. The operation has resulted in dozens of civilian deaths, according to Iranian authorities, and retaliation from Tehran that has shocked the region. Trump warned that there would be more American casualties: “Unfortunately, there will probably be more before it’s over. That’s how it is.”
