Donald Trump calls for regime change in Iran; favorite to replace Ali Khamenei comes up
Jun 23, 2025 02:45 AM IST
President Donald Trump called for a regime change in Iran a day after the US struck three nuclear sites in the Middle Eastern country. L: Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei | R: US President Donald Trump (Reuters photos)
'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump posted on Truth Social.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Kentucky MAGA: Trump advisers launch 'super PAC' to defeat Thomas Massie; Congressman denounced US strikes on Iran nuclear sites
Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie Two key advisers to Donald Trump have launched a "super PAC" (political action committee) to unseat Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who criticized the US President over the strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran, and previously, opposed the MAGA leader's "big, beautiful bill." The organization, named "Kentucky MAGA," will be run by Trump's senior political advisers, Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio. "The PAC would spend 'whatever it takes' to defeat Massie (in the May 2026 primary)," LaCivita told Axios, which was the first to report that the super PAC is being formed. Another Trump aide told the website that plans for taking on Massie were in the works before the Congressman decided to call the attack on Iran "unconstitutional." Trump lashes out at Massie for remarks on ' Operation Midnight Hammer ' Earlier, Trump called his fellow Republican Massie a "loser" and demanded that MAGA "drop" the Kentucky representative after the latter denounced Operation Midnight Hammer - the US air strikes in Iran - as "unconstitutional." "MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague! The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one," the US President wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes 'NO,' no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded 'grandstander' who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling 'DEATH TO AMERICA' at every chance they get," he added.
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump is open to regime change in Iran, after his admin said that wasn't goal
The Trump administration on Sunday sent a series of conflicting messages to Iran - with US officials initially indicating a willingness to resume negotiations after a surprise attack on three of the country's nuclear sites and President Donald Trump talking up the possibility of regime change. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" Trump posted on social media. "MIGA!!!" The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Hegseth said. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the US president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran. Live Events Up until the US president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Hegseth had said that America "does not seek war" with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings that could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear programme that might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. All of that raises the question of whether the strikes will open up a far more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. Inside the US, the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics with Trump choosing to spend part of his Sunday going after his critics in Congress. Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambaste Rep Thomas Massie, who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. "We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the bomb right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)" Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Hegseth and Air Force Gen Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. Caine indicated that the goal of the operation - destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan - had been achieved. "Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Caine said. Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss "sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground," he felt "very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon." Pressed further, he told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon." The vice president said the US had "negotiated aggressively' with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting "in good faith." "I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbours, not to be a threat to the United States, and if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears," Vance said. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "there are no planned military operations right now against Iran, unless, unless they mess around and they attack" US interests. Trump has previously threatened other countries, but often backed down or failed to follow through, given his promises to his coalition of voters not to entangle the United States in an extended war. It was not immediately clear whether Iran saw the avoidance of a wider conflict as in its best interests. Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East after the US inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran. Israeli airstrikes that began on June 13 local time targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and generals, prompting retaliation from Iran and creating a series of events that contributed to the US attack. While US officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticised the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Washington was "fully responsible" for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. "They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities," he said at a news conference in Turkey. "I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy." China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were "a gross violation of international law," said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated "returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course." A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to "a global level". British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for "a rapid resumption of negotiations." France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi crown prince and sultan of Oman. Iran could try to stop oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which could create the same kind of inflationary shocks that the world felt after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Oil prices increased in the financial markets as the war between Israel and Iran had intensified, climbing by 21% over the past month. The Pentagon briefing did not provide any new details about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Hegseth said the timeline for the strikes was the result of a schedule set by Trump for talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. "Iran found out" that when Trump "says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation," Hegseth said. "Otherwise, that nuclear programme, that new nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it." That statement was complicated as the White House had suggested last Thursday that Trump could take as much as two weeks to determine whether to strike Iran or continue to pursue negotiations. But the US benefited from Iran's weakened air defences and was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran. "Iran's fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran's surface to air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission," Caine said. Hegseth said that a choice to move a number of B-2 bombers from their base in Missouri earlier Saturday was meant to be a decoy to throw off Iranians. Caine added that the US used other methods of deception as well, deploying fighters to protect the B-2 bombers that dropped a total of 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iran's sites at Fordo and Natanz. The strikes occurred Saturday between 6:40 pm and 7:05 pm in Washington, or roughly 2:10 am on Sunday in Iran.
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump's gamble in Iran: Implications for the US, its allies, and a weakened Tehran
In a bold political gamble, US President Donald Trump has now entered the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, after initially distancing himself from Tel Aviv's strikes on Tehran's nuclear infrastructure earlier this month. Whether or not this was his original intent, Trump's intervention carries far-reaching implications—not just for US domestic politics and foreign policy, but also for the geopolitics of the Middle East and broader Asia. Trump's principal political challenge may not come from international criticism labelling his actions as illegal—a view echoed by the opposition Democratic Party—but rather from within his own support base, the 'Make America Great Again' coalition. A key element that propelled Trump back into the White House has been the solid support of the populist right-wing that has been vocal in its opposition to America's 'endless wars' in the Middle East. Throughout his campaign, Trump promised to be a 'peace president,' pledging to avoid military entanglements abroad. His calculation appears to be that the strike on Iran would be swift and decisive and that Tehran would comply with his demands. But recent American history suggests it is far easier to start a war than to end one. The enemy, after all, has a say in when—and whether—it ends. Trump is betting that Iran is too weak to mount a significant response or that American military power can suppress any escalation. Yet if he is dragged into a drawn-out conflict, the resulting backlash could erode his domestic support and jeopardise his presidency. Iran, for its part, has shown little interest in capitulating. It has launched missile attacks against Israel, though the frequency and intensity of these strikes are tapering off. Israel, enjoying complete air superiority, continues to target Iranian military infrastructure with impunity. Still, Tehran retains the option to widen the war—by targeting US forces in the region, attacking American allies, or disrupting vital oil shipping lanes in the Gulf. Such actions would provoke massive retaliation from the US, particularly against Iran's oil sector. Yet with the Islamic Republic's political credibility on the line, passivity is not an option. Over the past year and a half, Iran has lost considerable ground in the Middle East. A resurgent Israel has dealt major blows to Tehran's regional proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has also lost a key ally in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, its principal international backers—Russia and China—have criticised US actions but offered little tangible support in the face of coordinated Israeli-American military pressure. Whether Moscow and Beijing will now step in to provide political or diplomatic cover for Tehran remains uncertain. Iran's Arab neighbors, who have no reason to love the Islamic Republic of Iran, have provided passive support to Israel's offensive. Many in the Gulf may quietly welcome the dismantling of Iran's nuclear capabilities, but they also fear the consequences of a prolonged war that could destabilise the region and threaten their own security. For Israel, US military involvement represents a major strategic victory. Tel Aviv's goals go beyond halting Iran's nuclear programme—it seeks regime change in Tehran. Whether the nuclear infrastructure has been permanently destroyed or merely set back remains unclear. Tehran insists the US strikes had minimal impact, and many observers suspect Iran may have secured its enriched uranium stockpiles before the bombing began. While Israel continues to pursue the elusive goal of regime change, the outcome remains far from certain. Beyond the Middle East, America's Asian allies are watching with concern. They worry that Washington's oft-repeated 'pivot to Asia' could once again be sidelined by military entanglements in the Middle East. Beijing, however, is unlikely to object. A distracted United States, preoccupied with the Middle Eastern wars, makes it easier for China to pursue strategic primacy across the Indo-Pacific. (C Raja Mohan is a distinguished fellow at the Council on Strategic and Defence Research, Delhi, and a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express)
