Trump calls for regime change in Iran — but history warns it’s not simple

Barely an hour after the initial US and Israeli missile strikes hit Iran, Donald Trump articulated a clear desire for regime change. In a video message to the Iranian people, he declared: "Now is the time to seize control of your destiny. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass." This bold statement, coupled with the significant news confirmed by Iranian state media early on Sunday that Israel and the United States had killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, raises immediate questions about the feasibility and wisdom of such an endeavour.

History, however, suggests that such ambitions are fraught with peril. Washington’s long and complex relationship with regime change is littered with examples of unintended consequences, from Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s to Panama in 1989, and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11.

Even Iran itself experienced a CIA-engineered coup in 1953, which toppled its democratically elected leader and installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, only for him to be overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. As this history demonstrates, regime change rarely unfolds as planned. Attempts to usher in US-friendly governments, often beginning with clear intentions like promoting democracy or backing anti-Communist leaders, frequently devolve into political quagmires, civil wars, and the return of American soldiers in body bags.

South Vietnamese rebel troops take up positions in the yard of the presidential palace, residence of President Ngo Dinh Diem, in Saigon, VietnamAP

This historical pattern has long been a talking point for Donald Trump. In 2016, he stated: "We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change." He reiterated this sentiment in a 2025 speech in Saudi Arabia, deriding US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq: "In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built."

He criticised "interventionists" for "intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand." Now, following Saturday's actions and the death of Khamenei, a critical question emerges: does the current US government truly comprehend the complexities it is entering?

The precise meaning of "regime change" in the Iranian context remains unclear. Iran’s economy is in disarray, dissent persists despite a brutal January crackdown that left thousands dead and tens of thousands arrested, and key military proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Assad government have been weakened. The United States has not yet outlined a post-war vision and may not even seek a complete overthrow of the Iranian leadership. Instead, it might be looking for potential allies within the existing government to fill a power vacuum, a strategy potentially mirrored in Venezuela.

Jonathan Schanzer, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank critical of the Iranian government, commented on this nuanced approach: "There needs to be a sense that there is no salvation for the regime as such, and that they will need to work with the United States." However, in a country where core leaders are deeply united by ideology and religion, this could prove exceptionally difficult.

Residents look at the damage caused by a U.S. air strike in the village of Deh Sabz, north of the Afghan capital Kabul AP

Schanzer questioned: "The question to my mind right now is have we been able to penetrate the ranks of the regime that are not true believers that are more pragmatic? Because I don’t believe that the true believers will flip." It is simply too early to ascertain the extent of any political shifts in Tehran, and any successor leaders could prove equally repressive or be perceived domestically as illegitimate US puppets. Phillips O’Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, noted: "Air power can damage a leadership. But it can’t guarantee that you’ll bring in something new."

Washington’s history of intervention in Latin America offers further cautionary tales, stretching back over 200 years to President James Monroe’s declaration of the hemisphere as a US sphere of influence. While initially intended to keep European powers out, the Monroe Doctrine later justified actions ranging from coups in Central America to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba in 1961. Historians frequently point out that such interventions rarely "resulted in long-term democratic stability," often leading to violence, bloodshed, and mass human rights violations. Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, highlights Guatemala, where US intervention in the 1950s sparked a 40-year civil war that claimed over 200,000 lives, and Nicaragua, where backing Contra rebels in the 1980s devastated the economy and deepened political polarisation.

Sandinista soldiers walk amid the debris after shooting down a supply plane of the U.S.-backed rebels in Loma El Arenal, NicaraguaAP

Although large-scale, overt US involvement in the region largely subsided after the Cold War, Donald Trump has rekindled this legacy. Since assuming office, he has ordered boat strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean, imposed a naval blockade on Venezuelan oil exports, and engaged in electoral politics in Honduras and Argentina. Most notably, on 3 January, US forces captured Venezuelan strongman leader Nicolás Maduro, flying him to the US to face drug and weapons charges. What transpired in Caracas may offer a glimpse into the White House’s hopes for Tehran. Instead of backing María Corina Machado, a prominent figure of Venezuelan political resistance, Washington effectively sidelined her, demonstrating a willingness to work with President Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s second-in-command. Schanzer observed: "There are those who could claim that what we did in Venezuela is not regime change. The regime is still in place. There’s just one person that’s missing." This approach suggests a strategy of targeted removal rather than wholesale societal transformation, but whether such a nuanced intervention can succeed in Iran, given its complex internal dynamics and the profound historical lessons, remains to be seen.