Is Trump’s dream of regime change in Iran realistic?

Home > Opinion > Columns

Is Trump’s dream of regime change in Iran realistic?

Published: 07 Apr. 2026, 00:03

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Park Hyun-do

The author is a professor at the Sogang Institute for Euro-MENA Studies at Sogang University.

At around 9:40 a.m. on Feb. 28, the United States and Israel launched an invasion and airstrike on Tehran, Iran’s capital, killing about 40 members of the country’s leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. It marked the opening of a second war on Iran, following a conflict that began on June 13 of last year with Israel’s pre-emptive strike. In the first war, Israel mainly carried out the attacks while the United States assisted by bombing nuclear facilities. In this second war, however, the United States and Israel launched the assault together from the very beginning.

A UGC image posted and shared on social media on March 14 shows smoke plumes rising over the Iranian city of Isfahan after airstrikes. A US-Israeli missile attack on an industrial area of Isfahan killed at least 15 people, Iran's Fars news agency reported on March 14. [AFP/YONHAP]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the war launched together with the United States, “We are now able to realize something I have long wished for over 40 years. That is to uproot the terrorist regime.” Since appearing on the international stage in 1984 as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Netanyahu has consistently stressed the “threat from Iran” and repeatedly hoped for and urged a U.S. attack on Iran. Israel alone would find it difficult to deal with Iran, and the effect would be limited. If Iran is to be thoroughly brought down, U.S. help is essential.

This photo taken on April 4 shows a building destroyed in a U.S. and Israeli airstrike at the Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, Iran. Iran's Minister of Science, Research and Technology Hossein Simaei-Sarraf said on Saturday more than 30 Iranian universities have been directly attacked by the United States and Israel since the beginning of the war in late February. [XINHUA.YONHAP]

It is reasonable to view this war as one asked for by Israel and answered by the United States. On Dec. 29 last year, after the first war, Netanyahu grew concerned that Iran’s number of ballistic missiles was increasing faster than expected and secured U.S. President Donald Trump’s approval for an airstrike operation to eliminate them. But after the sudden outbreak of protests in Iran on Dec. 28 last year, and while watching developments through a third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks this year, the attack was abruptly launched ahead of a fourth round of talks in the first week of last month.
The core goal of the war appears to have been regime change in Iran. According to Israeli media, shortly before the war, the head of Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad told Netanyahu that if Iran’s leadership were removed and the regime dealt a severe blow, Mossad and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency knew how to help the Iranian people return to the streets and achieve regime change. At the start of the war, Israel’s defense minister suggested it would end within four days. But events did not unfold as the United States and Israel had intended.

Trump seems to have expected that if the core of Iran’s regime were struck, protesters would be able to come out into the streets freely and bring about regime change. Announcing the start of the war, Trump told the Iranian people, “Once we finish our mission, take control of your government. It will be yours. This may be a once-in-generations opportunity for you.” But contrary to expectations, protests did not break out and Iran’s military retaliation was fierce. Although the country lost its leadership, the counterattack proceeded according to plans already prepared in anticipation of such a vacuum.

Even Iranians who had taken part in anti-government protests before the war were likely left stunned by the merciless U.S. and Israeli airstrikes. Some may once have hoped to bring down the regime with help from the United States and Israel, but many likely changed their minds as they watched family members and neighbors die under falling bombs and saw their country being destroyed. Above all, for protests to succeed, force must combine with the demonstrators in the form of a revolt from within the military. But there were no clear signs of division in Iran’s armed forces serious enough to make such an uprising succeed. Unless the United States were to send in ground troops and change the regime in a manner close to conquest, the odds of regime change through protests alone are slim.

To say, in effect, “We will strike, so come out,” is really to tell protesters to fight a battle they cannot win. In Iran, the authorities did not immediately launch large-scale arrests of people who rejoiced after Khamenei’s death, but later issued a warning that anyone engaging in unrest would be regarded as collaborating with the enemy. In such an atmosphere, protest is impossible. Yet even now, as the war enters its sixth week, the United States and Israel do not seem to have fully abandoned their dream of regime change in Iran.

Before the war, Iran had threatened that if the United States attacked, the result would not be simply a U.S.-Iran war but a regional war in the Middle East, and that the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked. Because Iran had always made such threats whenever the United States exerted pressure, many paid little attention, like listening to the warnings of the boy who cried wolf. But now those warnings have become reality. Trump appears bewildered. He warned that unless the closure of the Strait of Hormuz was lifted, Iran would experience “hell,” and he announced a massive attack. Even while threatening indiscriminate bombing of civilian facilities, he still seems unwilling to give up hope of regime change.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a televised address on the conflict in the Middle East from the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 1. [AFP/YONHAP]

In his first national address since the war began, delivered last Wednesday, Trump said, “Regime change is not our goal. We do not want it.” But just seven minutes later he reversed himself, saying, “Regime change is what we want. It is necessary.” His mind appears fixed on regime change. He seems unable to abandon the hope that if bombing is expanded on a massive scale, Iran will collapse and a regime favorable to the United States will take power.

Yet Trump has also said that regime change has already taken place. He even described Iran’s new leadership as “less radical” and “much more rational.” He said, “The previous regime has completely collapsed, and all its members are dead. The next regime has almost collapsed too, and entirely different people are leading the third regime. It is a completely different group. So I consider this regime change.” It is impossible to know how he distinguishes the first, second and third regimes. One can only assume he was referring to the replacement of top figures after assassinations, but Trump’s perception seems far removed from reality.

Ali Larijani, a senior figure in Iran’s Supreme National Security Council who had at least been someone with whom dialogue was possible, was killed in an Israeli airstrike. His successor Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, along with Ahmad Vahidi, the hard-line commander now helping lead Iran, are considered ultra-hard-liners. Faced with an Iranian leadership that continues to respond proportionally to U.S. attacks and has not abandoned its hard-line strategy, it is difficult even to guess what Trump means when he speaks of a completely different third regime. The time is approaching when it will become clearer what kind of regime change Trump is dreaming of under such a profoundly unrealistic view of the situation.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.