Trump floats regime change in Iran, muddying the administration's message
Top Trump officials said their strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites were limited, but they don’t have much control over the knock-on effects in the Middle East and their party.
President Donald Trump’s top national security officials spent much of Sunday insisting his administration doesn’t want to bring about the end of Iran’s government, only its nuclear program.
Then Trump left the door open for exactly that.
“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??? MIGA!!!”
Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
While Trump did not call for the ouster of the regime, or say that the U.S. would play any role in overthrowing the Iranian government, his words undercut what had appeared to be a coordinated message from his top advisers.
Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth each insisted Sunday that the U.S. was only interested in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
19 comments:
Why do these ppl even make statements? Every time you open your mouth to speak for a Trump or a policy, you get blindsided.
I don't get it.
"“if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???"
That's what happened to our country so why shouldn't it happen in others.
As we consider the impact of our actions towards Iran, I think it is a mistake for us to place all the blame on Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA in his first term.
However that does not absolve him of blame or some culpability.
Remember, the JCPOA was negotiated by the Obama Admin. Trump did not like the agreement, so the US withdrew from it during his admin. At the time, Trump said in addition to our withdrawal, we need not worry, because he would negotiate "a new and better deal."
Like most of Trump's utterances, we now know what he promised never happened. Not in "one day", "not in two weeks" not ever.
So perhaps if Trump had kept his word when he withdrew us, and had done the hard work of striking a new deal, we would not be here today. With our soldiers in the area being bombed themselves in response to the rashness of our president.
The neocon War Hawks have been salivating for war with Iran and regime change every since the Islamic Revolution when the corrupt Shaw fell.
Trump is a liar. His administration lies. Trusting anything he says is foolish. He is lucking his chops at a full fledged war with Iran and regime change . And his entire administration of sheeple are humping for war and regime change as well. Even if they disagree. In order to avoid his wrath and continue to survive.
It is very likely that the FOTUS and the Zionist Butcher Netanyahu have been planning this since January 20, 2025.
Keep you eyes on the great distractor... and watch your Future disappear.
Iran has threatened most nations of the world and the US is not an exception. They have said they were going to close the straits for decades. They are an unstable government who holds the world at bay for decades. They said they would allow inspectors in then changed their minds so there is no proof they were not developing a nuclear weapon and due to the sites they have shows they were. We gave them billions for the development with the promise they would adhere to the conditions and they did not. We had sanctions on them and someone made them less demanding.
It is the people of iran who suffer so maybe they need a regime change but I don't think it is the US who should push it forward and the surrounding countries are afraid of what iran might do.
Les is correct trump lies but so has every other US president for the last two decades just look at the entire last administration and the media coverup.
There is NO equivalency skud and you saying so does not make it so.
Before we get to Iran, let me address Skud...
Two things can be true at once Skud. Yes Biden lied or at best, misled the American people about his aging or mental acuity. Which was pointed out here numerous times. Many of us here have also been critical of Dems when they have lied.
And yes, Trump has frequently lied. And we've been critical of that too.
But what we don't see from you Skud, -FJ or or other MAGA fans is a like minded stance to be critical of Trump and Trump alone. You mostly couch your criticisms of Trump in the "they do it too" or "they all do it".
While that may be true, honorable, respectable people do not use that dodge to avoid calling out "their guy" like you do.
At least Mustang over at Geeez singularly calls Trump the lying scoundrel he is. To the consternation of the rest of the cult. You?
Never. Why?
Now onto Iran... Skud is correct in that world leaders, including US Presidents have for years decried the actions of Iran. And the US still has a lot of pent up butt hurt from the 1979 hostage issue.
At some point, if our words are to matter, we've got to back them up with actions. The reality is this... we cannot have a belligerent country, in this case, Iran, fomenting unrest across the Persian Gulf and threatening the world economy.
For all the ppl decrying the actions in Iran by the Trump Admin, what solutions do you have? Did trump act differently than other presidents on this? Yes he did. But why shouldn't he? The actions of our other presidents toward Iran have not worked. Why not change course?
At this point, does anyone actually know if the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites actually accomplished what the bombing set out to do? I've heard so many contradictory reports on this that it is difficult to know what is true and what isn't.
And I don't think Trump is the best source for the truth. He claimed Iran and Israel agreed on a cease-fire, and within minutes, that cease-fire did not exist.
So, what do we believe at this point?
"The actions of our other presidents toward Iran have not worked. Why not change course?"
Changing course should not mean expanding war in the ME, IMO. Iran has powerful allies:
"Iran's key allies can be categorized into two main groups:
1. Regional Allies (Axis of Resistance):
Hezbollah (Lebanon): A powerful political party and militant group that formed with Iranian support in the early 1980s. Iran provides significant funding, training, and weaponry to Hezbollah.
Houthi Movement (Yemen): A rebel group that has been in conflict with the Yemeni government and has received support from Iran. The Houthis have openly supported Iran and have engaged in missile strikes against Israel and targeted commercial ships in the Red Sea.
Militias in Iraq: Iran has ties with various Shiite militia groups in Iraq, including Kata'ib Hezbollah, the Badr Organization, and Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq. These groups have at times attacked bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Gaza Strip): Iran provides support to these Palestinian militant groups.
Syria (formerly): Iran had close ties with the Syrian regime under Bashar al-Assad, but that alliance diminished after he was ousted. However, the Syrian government is still considered a part of the "Axis of Resistance" by some, with Iran backing certain armed factions within Syria."
And what should we make of the fact that Trump disregarded the findings of his own DNI? Why would he do that? I've read that he rarely, if ever, reads the daily PDBs put in front of him.
"It's unlikely that Donald Trump reads the President's Daily Brief (PDB) daily. Several sources suggest that he prefers to receive information through verbal briefings and discussions rather than reading lengthy documents. In his first term, the format of the PDB was adjusted to include more graphics and maps, reflecting his preference for visual presentations. One source even stated that Trump "doesn't really read anything".
Does anyone feel safe with a president who is too lazy to keep informed on world crises and who "doesn't really read anything." Trump says he relies on his "gut instincts." What are those "instincts" based on? Knowledge? Hard analyses? Or just the whim of the moment, which would satisfy his ego?
These thoughts keep me awake at night.
And how many Americans remember how the Supreme Leader in Iran attained power?
"The United States, along with the UK, played a significant role in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, which overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.
Following the coup, the US supported the installation of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the country's ruler.
Mosaddegh's government:
In 1951, Mosaddegh was democratically elected as Prime Minister of Iran. He nationalized the Iranian oil industry, which was previously controlled by the British.
British concerns:
The British government was highly alarmed by Mosaddegh's actions and sought to oust him.
US involvement:
The US, concerned about the potential spread of communism and the loss of access to Iranian oil, joined the UK in their efforts.
The coup:
In 1953, the CIA, under the code name Operation Ajax, orchestrated a coup that removed Mosaddegh from power.
Shah's return:
Following the coup, the Shah, who had previously fled the country, returned and resumed his rule with strong US support.
Consequences:
The coup led to the establishment of a pro-US autocratic regime under the Shah, which lasted for decades and contributed to the anti-American sentiment that fueled the 1979 Iranian Revolution."
We meddled in Iran's democratic election, which results we and the British did not like. We then installed the Shah whose police force during his reign was SAVAK, a secret police organization known for its brutality and suppression of dissent.
We have ignored George Washington's advice since the beginning, haven't we.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned against the dangers of foreign entanglements.
Iran is not a good actor. But neither is Isreal or the USA. It's easy to blame, blame, blame someone else for all the problems. Maybe its time to look deeply into the mirror. And I mean REAL deep. But I know that ain't gonna happen. Pride will prevent that from ever happening.
Thanks Shaw. We too often forget it was us, the USA, that holds responsibility to a degree for the Islamic Revolution. It's so good to see someone else recalling and recognizing the truth. America at large will NEVER acknowledge it.
Better to be dishonest and pretend. Like tRump and .AGA do regularly
"60% --- Sixty percent: that is the share of women among university graduates in Iran. The highest proportion in the world. Also in science and technology programs: 70%. Contrary to what one might expect, Iranian women have made rapid gains in higher education since the Islamic revolution, despite major obstacles including restricting the study programs available to them."
That's a bit higher than the US, which is 58% share of women in American colleges and universities.
And do you actually believe the US should effect "regime change?" We did interfered and helped overthrow a previously democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. That "regime change" brought the Shah of Iran to power, which, in turn, brought about the Iranian Revolution and their Supreme Leaders.
We interfere in other countries' elections, for our own political reasons, and then are horrified with the results of our interventions.
Differing Perspectives:
It's crucial to acknowledge that various actors perceive Iran's actions differently, with some viewing its support for regional groups as a defensive measure or a way to project power.
Not All Nations Threatened: While Iran's actions impact several countries, it's not accurate to say it has threatened "most" nations in the world. Many nations have diplomatic and commercial relations with Iran.
Proxy Conflicts: A significant portion of Iran's regional influence is exerted through proxies and armed groups, which allows it to exert influence without directly engaging in large-scale military conflicts.
Shifting Dynamics: The balance of power in the Middle East is constantly evolving, and Iran's relationships with other countries, as well as its capabilities, are subject to change.
In conclusion, while Iran's actions and policies have undoubtedly led to tensions and conflicts with certain nations, particularly in the Middle East, it's an oversimplification to state that Iran has threatened "most" nations globally."
“We gave Iran its starter kit,” said Robert Einhorn, a former arms control official who worked on U.S. negotiations with Iran to limit its nuclear program.
“We weren’t terribly concerned about nuclear proliferation in those days, so we were pretty promiscuous about transferring nuclear technology,” said Mr. Einhorn, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “We got other countries started in the nuclear business.”
“Atoms for Peace” was born of a speech Mr. Eisenhower delivered at the United Nations in December 1953, in which he warned of the dangers of a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union and vowed to lead the world “out of this dark chamber of horrors into the light.”
Mr. Eisenhower explained that the world should better understand such a destructive technology, and that its secrets should be shared and put to constructive use. “It is not enough just to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers,” he said. “It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.”
[skip]
The Eisenhower administration also saw the program as a way to gain influence over important pieces on the global Cold War chessboard. They included Israel, Pakistan and Iran, which were given nuclear information, training and equipment to be used for peaceful purposes, such as science, medicine and energy.
The Iran that received an American research reactor in 1967 was very different from the country ruled today by clerics and generals. It was led then by a monarch, or shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a Swiss-educated aristocrat installed in a 1953 coup backed by the C.I.A., to the lasting anger of many Iranians.
Mr. Pahlavi was determined to modernize his nation and make it a world power, with American backing. He liberalized Iranian society, promoting secularism and Western education even as he harshly repressed political opposition."
SOURCE
Shaw asked... "At this point, does anyone actually know if the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites actually accomplished what the bombing set out to do?"
No Shaw, we don't. Not until we "see" or get the ABA [after bombing assessment]. Until that point, we're left arguing between severe damage, as the NY Times claims Pentagon officials are calling it and "complete obliteration" as Trump is calling it.
Weirdly, VP Vance says those two characterizations are the same.
Now, do I feel safer with Trump in office? Nope. But I hope he was successful with the Iran strikes and they will give us a badly needed reset in the Middle East AND that he, as president, can rein in Netanyahu.
Facts that many have told me never happened. Because their well informed brain had never them. From FOX News or anywhere else.
David, You are totally mistaken in what you said or you influentially lied. On numerous occasions I have said trump lied, that he is an narcissist insecure individual. Look back at my posts and you can confirm for yourself that this is true. And I am not a MAGA fan although I do want America to be great.
What I have also said is the democrats gave people little choice because they anointed a horrible candidate because she was a women at birth and she was a minority so they figured it was a shoe in because so many people hated trump.
Iran was an ally when we controlled their leader and an enemy when we didn't. Religious zealots don't make very good leaders.
What is typical of the left is it is OK for them but totally wrong for trump.
'If I am president, we will attack Iran.' - Hillary Clinton, 2008
Now we have the leader of the democrat party, AOC, calling for trump to be impeached.
At this point it doesn't appear the bombs destroyed the bunker but it sure made the iranians think and lose some sleep. Ms. Shaw, What powerful allies does iran have, not russia, china, UAE, Turkey, Egypt so are you referring to cuba maybe?
Post a Comment