Is Regime Change on the Table for Iran?

President Donald Trump said the ceasefire with Iran is over and expressed frustration with Iran’s leaders.
“We can play games, but I’m not sure I want to make a deal,” Trump said. “Let’s just finish the job.”

Middle East Forum’s Chief Strategist Jim Hanson joined FOX News and noted that since the regime leaders are not negotiating in good faith, Trump should publicly state that the United States would support a new government.

Transcript:

FOX: Joining us now to break it all down, Middle East Forum Chief Strategist Jim Hanson. So what is the next move for them? Are we just dealing with a theocracy that thinks they’ve got the upper hand somehow?

HANSON: Yeah, I think they made a major miscalculation in assuming that they’d just be allowed to start selling oil, refill their coffers, you know, get some cash, and refit for the next round.

But they’re assuming President Trump doesn’t want to do anything before the midterms, and I don’t think that’s the way he looks at this. He took the political risk to do this in the first place. He’s not going to back down now.

And I think if I was the leadership of Iran, I might be trying to bury myself a little lower than even that nuclear dust to keep my head down, because they’re going to be looking for them.

And I think when he says, “get this done,” that puts on the table the one thing that wasn’t before: regime change. They could end the Islamic Republic of Iran’s run of tyranny, and that might be the best thing for everybody. That’s what they need to be thinking about.

FOX: How likely do you think that is? I think the president’s made very clear that’s up to the people of Iran.

HANSON: And there are ways to do that. You know, people seem to assume that if we’re going to do regime change in some way or support it, that means we’re going to, you know, send the Navy SEALs into Iran and try to overthrow the government and put U.S. boots on the ground.

There are plenty of people in that country who do not want that government any more, terrorizing their lives and ruining their country. They are the ones who can do that. And if we help them and tell them that might be the best way for them to do this, that could be a way for it to happen.

Slightly edited version of Hanson’s post on X:

Is Regime Change on the Table for Iran?

It should be as I said last night:

The leaders of Iran need to fear that failing to make a deal could end with their own end. We can reinforce that fear by returning a few more of them to their component molecules. But we should also say clearly and out loud that Iran deserves a government that serves its people, not an Islamic revolution that has delivered only death, destruction, and despair.

The Ayatollahs and the IRGC have proven they will not negotiate in good faith. So let them negotiate out of fear—or, better yet, let them be pushed aside. President Trump could call for a national referendum that allows the Iranian people to choose the type of government they want.

Those words would carry real power even if the referendum did not happen immediately.When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire,” he helped catalyze resistance and gave hope to the prisoners in the Gulag—among them Natan Sharansky, who later recalled:

The Iranian regime is deeply hated. Encouraging the nascent resistance with strong words—and perhaps more—would first pressure the current leaders to negotiate more seriously. It would also begin a process similar to the one that brought down the Berlin Wall and freed half of Europe.

We cannot bomb the regime into submission, but we never fired a shot at the Soviets, and they eventually fell. Iran’s Islamic Republic is truly an “Evil Empire” in its own right. There is no reason to treat it as if it possesses any legitimate authority beyond the iron sandal of tyranny it keeps on the throats of its people. It has passed its expiration date. Simply saying so begins the process that can make its demise a reality.