Trump Officials Deny Regime Change—But Trump Signals a Shift
It was the first time Trump publicly hinted at regime change, and with it, the clearest sign yet that this may not be just a one-night strike, but the beginning of something bigger.
On Sunday morning, Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared on national television to defend President Trump’s decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear sites—marking the first time the United States has directly struck Iranian territory.
During an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vance flatly rejected the notion that the U.S. was entering a new war.
“We’re not at war with Iran,” Vance said. “We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”
Asked whether the U.S. could confirm the sites were destroyed, Vance declined to give a definitive answer but offered a confident assessment:
He separately said during the interview that the U.S. “destroyed the Iranian nuclear program,” adding, “I think we set that program back substantially.”
On ABC’s This Week, Vance backed off slightly when pressed about the Fordo facility, buried deep in a mountain:
“Severely damaged versus obliterated — I’m not exactly sure what the difference is,” he said. “What we know is we set their nuclear program back substantially.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the message at a Pentagon briefing, calling the mission “not open-ended” and emphasizing:
“This is not about regime change.”
He stressed that Saturday’s U.S. military strikes were strictly targeted at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to Axios, Hegseth confirmed that seven B-2 stealth bombers carried out the “complex and high-risk mission,” flying 18 hours from the U.S. and coordinating with escort and support aircraft.
Both Vance and Hegseth insisted the U.S. wants peace if Iran is serious about returning to diplomacy.
But that message began to shift just hours later. On Sunday afternoon, Trump posted on Truth Social:
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!!!
It was the first time Trump publicly hinted at regime change, and with it, the clearest sign yet that this may not be just a one-night strike, but the beginning of something bigger.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The mullahs said they will close the Strait of Hormuz. Good luck with that stance. Our subs will sink their subs. The mullahs may cause damage to a destroyer or frigate via a Silk Worm missile. That will just lead to the iranian navy being totally destroyed. Then the hunt is on for the head mullah. And all in the line of succession. And what do the mullahs think is going to happen to their “ghost” tanker fleet? Sunk at sea without a trace, that’s what. Where is Chi a going to get all that cheap oil now?
The Neo Cons are dancing in the streets supporting Trump. That should tell you something.
It should tell us that you’re clueless.
John Bolton was praising Trump after years of criticism,..that should tell YOU something
All.of your heroes are aligned with China and Russia. That tells us a lot more.
Shut up, retard.
That should tell you something.
If the Iranian people choose to toss out the current regime on their own hook….that’s all well and good. Not our circus, not our monkeys. No boots on the ground. By all means if the BDA shows a need for follow-up strikes to make certain these nuke facilities or potential storage sites are eliminated …sure absolutely, do it. Same for strikes in response to future Iranian actions against US National security interests or even freedom of navigation for our vessels. Go for it. Hit hard and decisively enough to end it. No boots on the ground. No bs ‘pottery barn’ arguments, no rebuilding, no nation building.
It’s a tad more complicated than that. That’s like saying we should have left Germany to topple the Nazis on their own.
Iran has death squads for hunting out normal everyday dissenters.
A ‘no boots on the ground’ policy really isn’t complicated at all. Nobody said the Iranian people would have an easy time of it. It won’t be easy but it is up to them, not the USA.
Nazi Germany? Bruh, no. The Iranian regime has had over four & 1/2 decades in power, it’s a little late for such comparisons. That sort of thing is reminiscent of Iraq war arguments Saddam Hussein and his sons were bad guys. No boots on the ground. No more military adventurism. No more forever wars. The Iranian people can choose to topple the regime or not without our sons and daughters. We’ve still got troops in Iraq for goodness sake. Lets not go looking for another tar baby. I spent just under four years of my life in Iraq running counter insurgency operations and I’m still looking for adequate justification of why we were there. There’s no overriding US National Security interest to put boots on the ground in Iran
This. While I sincerely wish a free, prosperous, and peaceful polity, it’s something they are going to have to determine for themselves. If all that happens is Khamemei falls out a window and is replaced by a mullah that’s not a demented Twelver, okay. Unfortunate for the people of Iran, especially the women, but okay. Our only interests are in preventing nuclear proliferation and ending destabilization via terrorist proxies.
Tr ump probably needed to reveal his thinking a bit at a time to stop leaks and get full cooperation from guys like Hegseth. I think Trump wants to finish the job. So often especially in the middle east, if you go in hard and finish the job, then you get respect and love. Otherwise you get pity at best and are despised.
Everyone understands the objectives of the two sides even if they can’t say them. And there won’t be respect unless you actually work effectively for your objectives, rather than believing the diplomatic-speak and PC messaging.
Let’s hope that Trump doesn’t want to “finish the job!”,..that would require another war
“and get full cooperation from guys like Hegseth”
Thats not how any of this works. Those people are there to implement the Presidents policy. No theirs. The fact youre even thinking this way tells us you dont really understand how any of this works.
People like former Chairman of Joint Chiefs Mark Milley? As I recall he wasn’t exactly fully supportive of the policies in DJT’s first term.
It isn’t supposed to be that the appointees and the bureaucracy do their own thing and seek to subvert the electoral process by slow walking orders, by engaging in willful noncompliance or bad faith implementation. It does happen, Trump’s first term was replete.with examples. Same for the initial few months of the 2nd term with wokiesta bureaucracy trying to prevent DOGE access to information.
Why is it “not politically correct” to use the term “regime change”, if that’s what Trump wants? Why not say it?
Because the 5w bulb smooth brain big thinkers cant handle what is being said to them sweetie.