In the midst of February 2026, the Middle East teetered on the brink of a new war. The U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, declared by President Donald Trump as “major combat operations,” culminated months of tense negotiations and military preparations. Trump, who has repeatedly emphasized that he does not seek regime change in Tehran, openly called on Iranians to overthrow their government in a video address on Truth Social: “When we’re done, seize your government. It will be yours—this is probably your only chance for generations.” These words, spoken against the backdrop of explosions in Tehran, provoked a sharp reaction in Iran and intensified speculation about Washington’s true objectives. But does Trump truly deny regime change, or is this merely diplomatic rhetoric?
Background of Tensions: From JCPOA to Maximum Pressure
To understand the current crisis, it’s worth recalling the trajectory of relations between the U.S., Israel, and Iran under Trump. During his first term, Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program, imposing “maximum pressure” through sanctions and the elimination of General Qasem Soleimani. By 2026, after returning to the White House, Trump intensified this approach: the U.S. amassed the largest military presence in the region since the 2003 Iraq War, including the aircraft carriers USS Gerald Ford and USS Abraham Lincoln, fighter jets, and air defense systems.
Israel, a traditional U.S. ally, actively lobbied for a hardline stance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned of the “nuclear threat” from Iran, stating that Tehran could “blackmail any American city.” In June 2025, Israel launched a unilateral strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, provoking retaliatory drone and missile attacks from Iran. Trump, supporting Israel, signaled readiness for escalation if talks in Geneva failed. By February 2026, the U.S. demanded Iran’s complete abandonment of uranium enrichment, the dismantling of key sites (Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan), and restrictions on ballistic missiles—conditions that Tehran rejected as “capitulation.”
Trump’s Statements: Between Denial and Hinting
Trump has consistently asserted that the goal is not regime change. At the end of January 2026, he stated: “We’re not at war with Iran; we’re at war with its nuclear program.” Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed: “This is not about regime change.” However, in February, the tone shifted. On February 13, Trump declared: “Regime change in Iran seems like the best thing that could happen.” In his State of the Union address on February 24, he accused Iran of “rebuilding its nuclear program” for strikes on the U.S., adding that “no one knows” if military action would lead to regime change, but “sometimes you have to act with force.”
The climax was the February 28 video, where Trump described the Iranian regime as “a group of very brutal, horrible people” and urged the Iranian army to lay down arms and the people to seize power. This echoes his social media posts, where he wrote: “If the current Iranian regime can’t make Iran great again, why not change the regime??? MIGA!!!” Such statements, according to analysts, mask real intentions: limited strikes to pressure negotiations, but with potential for a broader campaign, including the elimination of leader Ali Khamenei.
Israel: Ally in the Offensive
Israel plays a key role in the escalation. The February 28 strikes were coordinated with the U.S., targeting nuclear sites, missiles, and Iran’s navy. Netanyahu has long dreamed of regime change in Tehran, seeing it as the “fulfillment of a decade-long obsession.” Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, on the contrary, believes change should come from within, not from strikes that only rally the regime. Israeli officials note that Trump views regime change as a “regional strategic tool,” waiting for the right moment.
Iran’s Reaction: From Accusations to Threats
Tehran reacted harshly, accusing Trump of “big lies” about the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and victims of January protests (where estimates suggest up to 30,000 deaths). Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei rejected the claims: “Everything they assert about Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and the number of victims in January is a repetition of ‘big lies.'” Khamenei called Trump a “criminal,” accusing him of inciting protests and destabilization. Iran closed its airspace, conducted exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, and promised “crushing” retaliation.
Official Iranian media emphasize that talks are possible only with diplomacy prioritized and sanctions lifted. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that a deal is feasible if the U.S. recognizes Iran’s right to enrichment for peaceful purposes. However, the regime rejects discussions on missiles or proxy forces, viewing them as the foundation of defense. Internally, Tehran uses the crisis for consolidation: protests are suppressed, and Trump is accused of “foreign interference.”
Analysis: Risks and Calculations
Trump’s statements are a balancing act: denying regime change preserves diplomatic maneuver, but calls for uprising suggest otherwise. According to The New York Times, Trump leans toward limited strikes for pressure but is prepared for a “comprehensive campaign” aimed at overthrow if Iran doesn’t yield. The risks are immense: escalation could turn into full-scale war, affecting the Strait of Hormuz and global oil prices. General Jack Keane warns: “Now is a historic chance for regime collapse,” but without ground troops, it’s a “pipe dream.”
From Iran’s side, the calculation is survival: offering economic incentives (investments in oil, purchases from the U.S.), Tehran hopes to soften Trump while avoiding concessions on nuclear and missiles. But if strikes continue, Iran may respond asymmetrically—through proxies in Yemen or Iraq—intensifying chaos.
Conclusion: Where Does This Path Lead?
Trump, positioning himself as “the only president ready to act,” risks repeating the mistakes of Iraq-2003: unclear goals, underestimation of resistance, and lack of a “day after” plan. For Iran, this is an existential threat, rallying the elite around Khamenei. If negotiations resume (technical talks in Vienna are planned), a compromise is possible—”token enrichment” for sanctions relief. But as bombs fall, regime change hangs in the air like a Damocles’ sword, threatening to reshape the entire region.
Comments