Trump Calls for Iran Regime Change After Strikes, But History Shows Challenges

Following recent military strikes on Iran, President Trump is encouraging Iranian citizens to overthrow their government. However, America's complex history with regime change efforts suggests such political transformations rarely unfold as intended.

Within just one hour of American and Israeli missiles hitting Iranian targets, President Donald Trump delivered a direct message encouraging political upheaval. In a video address aimed at Iranian citizens, Trump declared, “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”

The concept appears straightforward at first glance. With Iran’s widely disliked leadership weakened by devastating air attacks, key officials either killed or unaccounted for, and Washington offering its backing, overthrowing an oppressive government might seem achievable.

Historical precedent suggests otherwise.

America’s track record with toppling foreign governments spans decades and continents. The list includes Vietnam during the 1960s and 70s, Panama in 1989, Nicaragua throughout the 1980s, Iraq and Afghanistan following September 11th, and Venezuela in recent weeks.

Iran itself experienced American-backed regime change before. In 1953, the CIA orchestrated the removal of Iran’s democratically chosen prime minister, installing Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi with sweeping authority. Yet like the Shah, who fell during Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution after growing increasingly unpopular over decades, government overthrows seldom proceed according to plan.

American efforts to install friendly administrations typically begin with noble goals, whether promoting democracy in Iraq or supporting anti-Communist leadership in Congo during Cold War tensions. However, these missions frequently become mired in political chaos where democratic aspirations devolve into civil warfare, once-cooperative dictators become liabilities, and American service members come home in coffins.

Trump has frequently referenced this troubled history. “We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change,” he stated in 2016.

During a 2025 address in Saudi Arabia, Trump criticized previous administrations, saying, “In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built.” He condemned American efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that “interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”

Following Saturday’s military action, a crucial question arises: Does the current administration comprehend the complexity of its undertaking?

Iran faces severe economic turmoil, and popular dissent persists despite brutal government suppression of January protests that killed thousands and imprisoned tens of thousands more. The country’s primary military allies and proxy forces — including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Syria’s Assad regime — have suffered significant losses or elimination. Early Sunday reports from Iranian state media confirmed that Israel and the United States had eliminated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Washington has not articulated a post-conflict strategy and may not seek complete governmental overthrow. Similar to the Venezuelan situation, potential allies within Iran’s existing power structure might be willing to fill leadership voids.

Jonathan Schanzer, who leads the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank highly critical of Iran’s government, explained the challenges ahead. “But there’s a lot that needs to happen between now and a possible scenario along these lines. There needs to be a sense that there is no salvation for the regime as such, and that they will need to work with the United States.”

In a nation where core leadership remains bound by shared ideology and religious conviction, achieving such cooperation may prove exceptionally challenging.

“The question to my mind right now is have we been able to penetrate the ranks of the regime that are not true believers that are more pragmatic,” Schanzer noted. “Because I don’t believe that the true believers will flip.”

Determining whether political momentum is building in Tehran remains premature. Future leaders might prove equally oppressive or face domestic rejection as American puppets.

Phillips O’Brien, who teaches strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, cautioned about expectations. “We’ll see whether elements of the regime start moving against each other. Air power can damage a leadership, but it can’t guarantee that you’ll bring in something new.”

America’s intervention history in Latin America extends back over two centuries, beginning when President James Monroe declared the hemisphere part of America’s sphere of influence.

While the Monroe Doctrine initially aimed to exclude European powers from the region, by the 1900s it justified everything from Central American coups to the unsuccessful 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Historians note that such interventions frequently resulted in violence, bloodshed, and widespread human rights abuses.

Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at London’s Chatham House, argues that direct American involvement has rarely “resulted in long-term democratic stability.” He cites Guatemala, where 1950s U.S. intervention sparked a four-decade civil war that claimed over 200,000 lives.

Nicaragua presents another example, where American support for Contra rebels fighting the Sandinista government during the 1980s fueled prolonged civil conflict that devastated the economy, caused tens of thousands of deaths, and intensified political divisions.

Though large-scale American involvement in Latin America largely ended with the Cold War, Trump has revived this approach.

Since taking office, Trump has authorized naval strikes against Caribbean drug traffickers, imposed a blockade on Venezuelan oil exports, and intervened in electoral processes in Honduras and Argentina. On January 3rd, U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, transporting him to face American drug and weapons charges.

The aftermath in Caracas may preview White House expectations for Tehran. Many anticipated American support for María Corina Machado, Venezuela’s prominent opposition figure. Instead, Washington marginalized her while demonstrating willingness to collaborate with President Delcy Rodríguez, formerly Maduro’s deputy.

Schanzer observed the distinction: “There are those who could claim that what we did in Venezuela is not regime change. The regime is still in place. There’s just one person that’s missing.”