Trump says he's open to ‘regime change' in Iran, even as his aides insist otherwise
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday called into question the future of Iran's ruling theocracy after a surprise attack on three of the country's nuclear sites, seemingly contradicting his administration's calls to resume negotiations and avoid an escalation in fighting.
'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 post on his social media platform marked a stark reversal from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing of Iran early Sunday.
'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Hegseth said.
The administration has made clear it wants Iran to stop any development of nuclear weapons, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that any retaliation against the U.S. or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would 'put the regime at risk.'
But beyond that, the world is awash in uncertainty at a fragile moment that could decide whether parts of the globe tip into war or find a way to salvage a relative peace. Trump's message to Iran's leadership comes as the U.S. has warned Iran against retaliating for the bombardment targeting the heart of a nuclear program that it spent decades developing.
The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has called for a restart of negotiations, making it hard to get a read on whether the U.S. president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began with Israeli attacks on June 13.
Until Trump's post Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by his vice president, Pentagon chief, top military advisor 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 had 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 U.S. bases in the region, engage in cyberattacks or accelerate its nuclear program — which might seem more of a necessity after the U.S. strikes.
All of that raises the question of whether the U.S. bombing will open up a more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. In the U.S., the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics, with Trump spending part of his Sunday going after his critics in Congress.
He used a social media post to lambaste Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a stalwart Trump supporter 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 wrote.
Boak and Pesoli write for the Associated Press.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
34 minutes ago
- CNBC
NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?
Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Live updates: ‘Fighting Oligarchy' tour brings Bernie Sanders to Fort Worth
Bernie Sanders and his 'Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here' national tour has made targeted stops in deep-red congressional districts held by Republicans. Today's stop? Dickies Arena in Fort Worth. The independent senator from Vermont said his tour highlights the country's move toward authoritarianism and the increasingly large role billionaires and big corporations play on Capitol Hill. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, a Democrat from Austin, and former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a Democrat from El Paso, were among those speaking. At least 3,000 North Texans joined labor leaders in chants of 'What kind of power? People power,' as the crowd prepared for the entrance of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders is appearing in Fort Worth just short of 24 hours after President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facility sites. News of the strikes came to Sanders last night while he was onstage at another Fighting Oligarchy rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Sanders did not appear at an earlier event in Amarillo due to security meetings about the strikes, according to Amarillo's KAMR. IAM Union President Brian Bryant, the union representing Fort Worth Lockheed Martin workers, said he is worried the country is headed toward being controlled by an oligarchy, whether citizens realize it or not. He said the issues Sanders is highlighting are ones that resonate with all workers across the United States. 'It's an issue that our members, regardless of what party they affiliate themselves with, they can connect with this because even though they may have voted for the Trump administration, they're sensing that they are being left behind with the legislation he's passing,' Bryant said. 'It's not what they envisioned. It wasn't going to be they thought he was going to be pro-worker. He hasn't done anything that's pro-worker.' Though the union has made efforts to reach out to the Trump administration to raise questions about legislation being passed, Bryant said 'no one's listening.' 'Huge tax breaks for billionaires, and they're not doing anything to help the economy for the working people,' Bryant said. 'None of his executive orders, none of the bills that Congress has passed, they do nothing to go towards the heart of what the issue is that working people are still hurting.' Bryant said he is glad to be representing IAM Union at the Fighting Oligarchy Tour because Sanders is standing up for the workers Trump is leaving behind. 'We aren't just taking punches anymore, we're throwing them too,' Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder said as the crowd erupted in cheers. Scudder said it's high time to flip Texas and start actually representing the people instead of allowing Republicans to 'rig the game.' O'Rourke described a world where workers only have to work one job and money is not being funneled into billionaire's pockets. A world where the president does not stage an 'illegal war' on Iran and where veterans receive the benefits they are promised. 'But to realize this picture, we need action from all of us, and we need it right now,' O'Rourke said. 'If you see a protest, please show up and join it. If you don't see one, start on your own. This stuff is breaking through. It's changing public perception. It's applying political pressure on those in these positions of public trust, and we need more of it.' Casar said Trump's playbook is based on dividing people. 'He would try to play native born workers against immigrant workers, black against white, against Brown, have us fight each other so the rich could get richer.' The only way to beat the playbook every time, Casar said, is to stick together and stand in union. On stage, O'Rourke called out Republicans on the Tarrant County Commissioners Court for their mid-decade redistricting that some residents call racial gerrymandering. He said the act was one that would draw Precinct 2 Commissioner Alisa Simmons out of her seat — something Republicans on the court have been transparent about. O'Rourke told the Star-Telegram that redrawing lines to ensure political gain is human nature and that both parties do it while in power. The only way to fight it, he said, is to vote. 'So you have to guard against human nature, and that requires you know the people, the voters of Tarrant County, rejecting this, and even within newly drawn districts, making sure that there's a political consequence for those who tried to thwart the will of the voters.' As goes Tarrant County, so goes Texas, O'Rourke believes. With none of the 13 conservative-backed candidates winning in Tarrant County municipal elections, O'Rourke said it's a good sign for the midterm elections, but progressive candidates aren't out of the woods yet. He said voters are rejecting fascism and authoritarianism, no matter what political party is associated with it. 'It's just, do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe in the rule of law? Do you believe that people should be treated with dignity and respect?' O'Rourke said. 'Those are so fundamental and so basic, and I'm so encouraged that so many Americans are responding to these challenges and these choices at school board level, at the city council, at the commissioners court level across the state, in a very, very positive way.' O'Rourke, who lost to Gov. Greg Abbott in 2022 in the race for Texas Governor by about 10 percentage points, said he will stop speaking out politically when the problems Texans are facing solved. 'Everything that I was concerned about as a member of Congress, everything I was concerned about as a candidate, I'm still concerned about today,' O'Rourke said. 'You can't get rid of me, whether I'm a candidate or not, I'm going to be out here doing the work.' At the heart of the issues in America's political climate, Sanders said, is an immense concentration of wealth among a select few corporations and people. 'The bottom line is that today, the people on top have never, ever been better,' Sanders said to the crowd of over 6,500. The Vermont senator recalled sitting at Trump's inauguration earlier this year, where Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos sat near the president. Behind them, he said, were a dozen more billionaires, all of whom are reaping more rewards in U.S. politics than ever before. Trump is not being slick about lining their pockets, Sanders said. 'If you recall, right behind him, plain vision for the world to see, were the three wealthiest people in our country,' Sanders said. Throughout the night, O'Rourke, Casar and Sanders repeatedly decried this weekend's strikes in Iran as a blatantly unconstitutional effort to involve the United States in another 'forever war.' Sanders said the vast majority of Democrats understand what is happening and plan to act against the president. 'Whether you want to go to war in Iran or argue against, it just so happens, the President of the United States doesn't have the authority to do that,' Sanders said. 'Read the Constitution of the United States. It is Congress that has that authority. And I would hope that this week, we will force that resolution, War Powers Act, onto the floor and force people to vote.' Sanders said he doesn't accept states as being solely red or blue, he instead sees hard workers who have the same goals, needs and the same vision. 'This is not Democrat, Republican or independent,' Sanders said. 'I think it is criminal that in the richest country on Earth, we have so much income and wealth inequality that 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. We're the only major country not to guarantee health care to all people. And all of this is related to money in politics.' The bottom line of his tour across America, Sanders said, is that citizens need to get involved politically. 'I would urge people, in any way that they find comfortable, to stand up to the oligarchy,' Sanders said. 'Because what you have now is a small number of people who are incredibly greedy.'
CNBC
42 minutes ago
- CNBC
Why global markets are brushing off U.S. strikes on Iran
The U.S. joining the war between Israel and Iran might seem like a geopolitical flashpoint that would send markets tumbling. Instead, investors are largely shrugging off the escalation, with many strategists believing the conflict to be contained — and even bullish for some risk assets. As of 1 p.m. Singapore time, the MSCI World index, which tracks over a thousand large and mid-cap companies from 23 developed markets, declined only 0.12%. Safe havens are also trading mixed, with the Japanese yen weakening 0.64% against the dollar, while spot gold prices slipped 0.23% to $3,360 per ounce. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. dollar against a basket of currencies, rose 0.35%. In general, the market reactions after the U.S. strikes have been less aggressive, especially relative to just over a week ago when Israel launched airstrikes against Iran. "The markets view the attack on Iran as a relief with the nuclear threat now gone for the region," said Dan Ives, managing director at Wedbush, adding that he sees minimal risks of the Iran-Israel conflict spreading to the rest of the region and consequently more "isolated." While the gravity of the latest developments should not be dismissed, they are not seen as a systemic risk to global markets, other industry experts echoed. On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that the United States had attacked Iranian nuclear sites. Traders are now keeping a close eye on any potential countermeasures from Iran following the U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities. Iran's foreign minister warned that his country reserved "all options" to defend its sovereignty. According to Iranian state media, the country's parliament has also approved closing the Strait of Hormuz, a pivotal waterway for global oil trade, with about 20 million barrels of oil and oil products traversing through it each day. "It all depends on how Iran responds," said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Financial Group. "If they accept the end of their military nuclear desires… then this could be the end of the conflict and markets will be fine," he told CNBC. Boockvar is not of the view that Iran will carry out the disruption of global oil supplies. The worst-case scenario for markets would occur if Iran were to close the Strait, which is unlikely, said Marko Papic, chief strategist at GeoMacro Strategy. "If they do, oil prices go north of $100, fear and panic take over, stocks go down ~10% minimum, and investors rush to safe havens," he said. However, markets are subdued now given the "limited tools" that Tehran has at its disposal to retaliate, Papic added. The idea of shutting down the Hormuz waterway has been a recurring rhetoric from Iran, but it has never been acted upon, with experts highlighting that it is improbable. In 2018, Iran warned it could block the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions. Similar threats were made earlier in 2011 and 2012, when senior Iranian officials — including then-Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi — said the waterway could be closed if Western nations imposed more sanctions on Iran's oil exports due to its nuclear activities. "Tehran understands that, if they were to close the Strait, the retaliation from the U.S. would be swift, punitive, and brutal," Papic added. In a similar vein, Yardeni Research founder Ed Yardeni said the latest events have not shaken his conviction in the U.S. bull market."Geopolitically, we think that Trump has just reestablished America's military deterrence capabilities, thus increasing the credibility of his 'peace through strength' mantra," he said, adding that he is targeting 6,500 for the S&P 500 by the end of 2025. While predicting geopolitical developments in the Middle East is a "treacherous exercise," Yardeni believes that the region is in for a "radical transformation" now that Iranian nuclear facilities have been destroyed.
