President Donald Trump’s decision to launch military strikes against Iran while openly urging its citizens to overthrow its government marks a marked departure from decades of US regime change strategy, signals a more unpredictable phase in US foreign policy and raises deep questions about how Washington now seeks to reshape hostile states.
Read also | Khamenei’s family intervened in Israeli strikes
Historians and political analysts say this approach—combining targeted military force, rhetorical encouragement of insurgency and the absence of a clear plan for post-conflict governance—is markedly different from interventions in Iraq and Venezuela, where the United States pursued direct control of political transitions.
The big picture: A break from two decades of textbook interventions
Trump’s weekend attacks on Iran, carried out alongside Israel, were accompanied by an unusually vocal call for Iranian citizens to remove their own leadership.
After announcing the operation, Trump addressed the Iranians in a video message:
“Take over your rule when we’re done. It will be up to you to take over. This will probably be your only chance for generations.”
The United States and Israel said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, was killed in the attacks – a development that has thrown the Islamic republic’s future into immediate uncertainty, although conflicting claims continue to circulate.
Read also | Khamenei News Live: Is Iran’s Supreme Leader Alive After US-Israel Attack?
Unlike previous regime change campaigns, however, Washington did not propose occupying the territory, installing an interim administration, or overseeing political reconstruction.
Trump described alternative routes to Axios, outlining what he called potential “off-ramps”:
“I can go long and take over the whole thing, or I can end it in two or three days and say to the Iranians, ‘I’ll see you again in a few years when you start rebuilding (your nuclear and missile programs).’
Current Status: Diplomacy is collapsing as military pressure mounts
The strikes followed months of deteriorating diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program during Trump’s second term, along with worsening economic conditions that sparked domestic protests inside Iran.
Trump announced the strikes on Saturday and suggested that the Iranians themselves would take responsibility for political change once military operations are completed — a framework that places regime transformation primarily in the hands of domestic actors rather than U.S. forces.
How Iran differs from Iraq and Venezuela
Military historians argue that Iran’s strategy represents a fundamentally different model from earlier American interventions.
“Iran is different than both of those conflicts,” said former U.S. Army Col. Peter Mansoor, a professor of military history at Ohio State University.
Read also | Is Khamenei alive? Trump says yes, Iran denies as crisis deepens
Previous regime topplings, scholars note, were carried out with detailed plans to govern after the removal of ruling bodies — something that remains unclear in the Iran crisis.
“As General David Petraeus remarked at the start of the Iraq War in 2003, “Tell me how it ends,” Mansoor said.
Lessons from Iraq: Total Invasion and Nation Building
When the United States decided to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003, it did so through a large-scale ground invasion involving roughly 200,000 American troops.
Baghdad fell within weeks, Hussein was captured nine months later and Washington set up an interim ruling authority before gradually handing sovereignty back to Iraq – a process that took years and ended only after US forces withdrew in 2011.
The intervention had defined goals: the removal of Hussein and the removal of alleged weapons of mass destruction.
The war in Iraq is “an example of some of the mistaken assumptions that lead to the idea that replacing the political leadership of another country can happen quickly and easily,” said military historian David Kieran.
Trump’s Iran strategy, by contrast, did not include proposals for occupation or direct political administration.
Comparing Venezuela: Targeted Removal with US Surveillance
A more recent comparison is to Washington’s actions against Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, where US operations have involved limited boots on the ground, framed as law enforcement actions linked to criminal charges.
In private, officials have seen Maduro’s removal as a primary goal. According to Kieran, the United States pursued a defined political goal.
Read also | Insurance costs soar after Iranian attacks on vessels in Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz
“They removed Maduro with a special forces airstrike, but left the Venezuelan government mostly intact,” Kieran said.
Washington also maintained oversight of Venezuela’s political transition and elections, and secured influence over the country’s oil production.
No equivalent framework has been outlined for Iran, highlighting what analysts describe as a strategic diversion.
A strategy built on internal collapse?
Trump has repeatedly suggested that adversary governments can fall without large-scale US intervention — an approach he has rhetorically applied to Cuba.
“Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall,” Trump said, adding: “I don’t think we need any action. It looks like it’s going down.”
In Iran, the administration appears to be testing a similar theory: that sustained military pressure coupled with internal discontent could organically trigger regime collapse.
Uncertain succession and regional impact
Iran now faces an uncertain political future following the reported death of its supreme leader. Under the country’s constitution, the clerical council must choose a successor, but the chain of command – particularly within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – has reportedly been disrupted by the strikes.
International reactions underlined the growing geopolitical risks. China expressed “great concern” while the Russian Foreign Ministry described the attack as “a pre-planned and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state”.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi accused Israel of striking civilian targets, saying the attack on the girls’ school killed 53 students and injured 63 others.
Read also | Prediction Markets See War as Profitable – $529M Traded on US-Iran Bets
“Iran will punish those who kill our children,” Araghchi said, adding: “We don’t understand the reasons for the US attack on Iran. Maybe the US administration was involved.”
Iran has already launched retaliatory strikes against US bases in the region.
Will the Iranian regime really fall?
Despite Washington’s expectations, analysts warn that the regime’s collapse is far from certain.
So far, protesters in Iran have shown limited signs of organizing a nationwide uprising, according to Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
“I would be surprised if we saw significant defections or other conditions that would allow an insurgency to succeed today,” Maloney said.
The broader uncertainty, the researchers say, is not just whether the government will fall, but what might replace it.
“It’s not clear whether this regime will fall or whether this regime would leave, step down because of these bombings,” Kieran said. “And the real question is also, what would replace it?”
