Following coordinated U.S. and Israeli airstrikes that targeted Iranian leadership positions, former President Donald Trump publicly urged Iranian citizens to seize the opportunity for regime change. In a video address delivered shortly after the attacks, Trump declared: “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny. This is the moment for action.”
Despite this apparent simplicity, historical evidence suggests that successful regime change operations remain exceptionally complex. The United States possesses an extensive yet troubled history with such interventions, including operations in Vietnam (1960s-70s), Panama (1989), Nicaragua (1980s), Iraq and Afghanistan (post-9/11), and most recently in Venezuela. Notably, the CIA engineered the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government, installing Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi—who was subsequently ousted during the 1979 Islamic Revolution after increasingly authoritarian rule.
These intervention attempts frequently begin with clear intentions—establishing democracy in Iraq or supporting anti-Communist leaders during the Cold War—but often descend into political quagmires where democratic aspirations transform into civil conflicts, allied dictators become liabilities, and American casualties mount.
Trump himself previously criticized such nation-building efforts, stating in 2016: “We must abandon the failed policy of regime change,” and later remarking in Saudi Arabia that interventionists “were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”
The current situation presents particular complexities. Iran’s economy remains severely compromised, and dissent persists despite brutal crackdowns on protests that resulted in thousands of deaths and arrests. While key Iranian allies including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Assad government have been weakened, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei confirmed killed, the U.S. lacks a clear postwar vision.
Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies notes that potential allies might exist within Iran’s current power structure, but emphasizes that “there needs to be a sense that there is no salvation for the regime as such.” This proves particularly challenging in a leadership united by religious ideology, where “true believers” rarely switch allegiances.
Historical parallels extend to Latin America, where the Monroe Doctrine justified two centuries of interventionism. Christopher Sabatini of Chatham House observes that direct U.S. involvement has rarely produced “long-term democratic stability,” citing Guatemala’s 40-year civil war and Nicaragua’s devastating conflict as examples.
The recent Venezuelan operation may signal Washington’s current approach—rather than backing opposition leader María Corina Machado, the U.S. collaborated with President Delcy Rodríguez, previously second-in-command to captured leader Nicolás Maduro. This suggests a preference for modifying existing power structures rather than complete overthrow.
As military strategist Phillips O’Brien notes: “Air power can damage a leadership, but it can’t guarantee that you’ll bring in something new.” The fundamental question remains whether the U.S. fully comprehends the complexities of the society it seeks to reshape.