White House Walks Back Trump’s ‘Regime Change’ Post After U.S. Strikes Iran

Washington, D.C., The White House sought to clarify President Donald Trump’s provocative comments on Iran following his Truth Social post that hinted at regime change in Tehran. The post, made after U.S. airstrikes demolished Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, read: “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” The strikes, described as a precise operation to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, escalated tensions, prompting Iran to launch retaliatory missile attacks on U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq, with no reported casualties.

During Monday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed concerns about Trump’s remarks. When asked, “When the president is floating the idea of regime change, how does he believe that should be accomplished? Through the Iranians, the Israelis, or the Americans?” Leavitt responded, “The president’s posture and our military posture has not changed. We just took out their nuclear program on Saturday night, as you all know. But if they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn’t the Iranian people rise up against this brutal terrorist regime?” She clarified that Trump was not advocating for a U.S.-led regime change but challenging Iranians to confront their oppressive government.

In an online statement, Leavitt praised Trump’s decisiveness: “America is a much safer place today because of President Trump’s bold action to obliterate the rogue, radical Iranian regime’s nuclear capabilities. Past Presidents wanted to take this action, but they didn’t have the guts to make the decision. Peace through Strength is back under President Trump.” Despite the administration’s insistence that the strikes aimed solely to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat, Trump’s rhetoric, invoking “Make Iran Great Again” and urging an uprising, suggests a vision for internal political change. The exchanges highlight the delicate balance between military action and diplomatic signaling, with the Middle East on edge amid fears of further escalation.