After weeks of promising deliberation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran at the beginning of 2026, another Middle Eastern war seemed unlikely. The Omani Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, told CBS News that a deal to prevent conflict was within reach. However, after the Iranian government rejected key American proposals, a frustrated Trump administration, together with Israel, conducted joint strikes on key sites within Iran on Feb. 28, 2026.
These actions, codenamed Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion, represent a culmination of decades of Western exasperation with the Islamic Republic’s resistance to foreign interests in the region, especially against the development of its nuclear program. In announcing the attacks, Trump outlined a regime change goal, calling on Iranian citizens to “take over your [their] government.” While an end to the current regime’s tyrannical rule must happen due to its repression and threat to international stability, direct U.S. intervention would likely repeat past regime-change failures, leaving indirect support for internal opposition the most fruitful way forward.
Iran’s contention with the U.S. spans many presidents, but the Trump administration in particular has taken significant issue with the regime. In 2018, Trump’s first administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which returned U.S. sanctions but lifted restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program. After the withdrawal and assassinations of Iranian officials in 2020, the regime resumed its nuclear operations, leading to a set of joint American-Israeli attacks on nuclear enrichment sites like Fordow in the Twelve-Day War in June 2025.
The existing data, although limited, suggest that, within Iran, the regime is unpopular. A study by an Iranian research foundation of the literate Iranian population — a group generally more likely to be politically involved and capable of organization — found that around 70% oppose the current regime’s continuation. Although the true, reliable, self-reported numbers are unknown due to fears of government repression, the data show that Iranians who are most able to mobilize overwhelmingly oppose the current government. Due to an ongoing water crisis and a currency in free fall, regime change has become a top priority for protestors. Shouts of “Death to the dictator” and now “Death to Mojtaba,” referring to the new Supreme Leader, fill the streets of Tehran and other major cities, highlighting the extreme dissatisfaction many feel towards the ruling government.
For many Iranians, the anti-regime sentiment stems from the government’s extremely repressive nature and violent responses to protests. Since the protests began last year, UN experts have demanded transparency from the government on the true number of protestors killed by police, with humanitarian organizations estimating deaths reaching into the tens of thousands. Inside the country and abroad, some Iranians have called for American and Israeli support in toppling their government.
Altogether, the conditions outlined highlight that the current Iranian regime is both unstable and has lost the support of the people most capable of effecting political change. Continuing the rule risks increasing the internal collapse, regional instability, and humanitarian crises currently facing Iranians, like the protest massacres.
Ultimately, whether the United States engages in regime change depends not only on humanitarian concerns but also on its strategic interests within the region. Iran’s growing nuclear program creates the risk of volatile and unpredictable deployment of world-altering weapons, which could destabilize the region and draw the U.S. into future conflicts. Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, which is only one step away from reaching the 90% level of weapons-grade uranium.
Additionally, Iran’s leadership funds proxy groups that threaten U.S. allies, disrupt global shipping lines, and attack Western interests throughout the Middle East. The Iran-backed Houthis of Yemen have routinely attacked commercial vessels in the Red Sea, one of the world’s most crucial shipping corridors, increasing transportation times and costs.
From the Iranian citizens’ calls and concerns about the U.S’s benefit, a debate arises about the extent of America’s involvement in a regime change effort. The U.S. has a history of intervening directly in the national affairs of foreign states, with broadly negative results. However, when discussing foreign intervention, it is important to examine the nuance between direct regime change — or the direct foreign intervention to change a regime — and regime change itself. While history usually criticizes U.S. intervention in another state’s affairs, it does not necessarily hold the same view of regime change carried out domestically and without foreign intervention.
Throughout the world, many recall the 2003 collapse of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, and how American involvement caused a power vacuum that led to continued instability in the country to this day, leading to the rise of Islamist groups like the Islamic State. The U.S.’s mishandling of Iraq, as noted by the Bush administration’s false claims of weapons of mass destruction and the thousands of American lives lost in a conflict that ultimately made Iraq more unstable than it was before, acts as a cautionary example of how external, boots-on-the-ground regime change can have unintended consequences.
We do not need to look to other countries for an illustration of American meddling in Iranian affairs. In 1953, a CIA-incited coup deposed democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he attempted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The coup took place after American intelligence strategically coordinated conflicts in the streets of Tehran, leading to a chain reaction of instability that allowed for the speedy removal of the prime minister.
In short, the coup strengthened the leadership of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the former shah of Iran, who sought harmony of Iranian society with the West. His reforms eventually led to accusations from religious hardliners that he aligned strictly with American interests and used repressive tactics. Ultimately, his rule led to the consequential Islamic Revolution in 1979, leaving the country with the anti-Western government it has today.
America’s tendency to overthrow governments that oppose its international hegemony is not limited to the Middle East — numerous other regions have fallen victim to its far-reaching hand. In Asia, the Vietnam War, fought to prevent a communist regime from taking power, cost catastrophic losses of life and political division at home. Over in Libya in 2011, direct American intervention led to the transformation of the country into a failed state.
As history has shown, direct efforts to overthrow foreign governments are unwise and lead to unintended negative consequences. However, this does not mean regime change is impossible to attain. Rather, without indirect foreign support, meaningful regime change is unlikely.
Since the new Supreme Leader was elected in March, no single opposition group has risen to challenge the current regime, partly because none possess the financial resources needed to make an internal revolution possible. Therefore, a strategic opening exists for the U.S. to use its wealth and resources to enable revolution and forge a pathway towards democracy in Iran.
Compared with other global actors, the U.S. is well positioned to take the lead on this initiative. In the Middle East, it has the intelligence infrastructure, regional military presence, and diplomatic influence to coordinate meaningful support of a mission to remove the Islamic Republic from rule. Global organizations like the United Nations lack the enforcement mechanisms and political unity necessary to effect meaningful change in Middle Eastern affairs, due to their consensus-based decision-making, which can be easily disrupted. Therefore, the U.S., in its capacity as the West’s leading tactical superpower, must make covert, purposeful, but indirect supporting efforts to incite a movement. The efforts could involve providing financial backing, communication infrastructure, and political coordination to opposition groups, all of which the U.S. has pursued in the past.
During the Cold War, the CIA supplied the Polish anti-authoritarian “Solidarity” movement with money, printing equipment, radio and TV support, and delivery networks. The indirect support provided accelerated the collapse of the totalitarian Soviet regime, ushering in an age of growing democratic reforms in Eastern Europe. Instead of putting soldiers in the country, the U.S. used a bottom-up approach that built a sustainable future for the Poles.
The U.S. has already started working toward these goals, with reports claiming that the CIA has made efforts to arm the Kurdish minority within the country to incite uprisings. A revolution actuated by the country’s own citizens reduces the perception that the U.S. is violating their sovereignty.
Critics, like those in the “America First” isolationist movement, argue that even indirect involvement can direct American attention and resources away from domestic issues. However, continued instability in the Middle East causes direct economic and security consequences for Americans, with disruptions to global energy markets and threats to key allies. Also, an end to the regime would mean an end to the possibility of a larger regional war that could eventually require direct American involvement.
Overall, an end to the repressive Islamic Republic in Iran would benefit both Iranians and American strategic interests. However, history, as shown in the numerous failures in Iraq and other nations, has revealed that direct military involvement causes instability and unintended negative consequences instead of effective reform. In the place of direct action, the U.S. should limit itself to indirect support that empowers Iranians from within to bring about change on their own.
