Top Trump officials said their strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites were limited, but they don’t have much control over the knock-on effects in the Middle East and their party.
Donald Trump’s top national security officials spent much of Sunday insisting his administration doesn’t want to bring about the end of Iran’s government, only its nuclear program. Then Trump left the door open for exactly that.
“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!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
While Trump did not call for the ouster of the regime, or say that the U.S. would play any role in overthrowing the Iranian government, his words undercut what had appeared to be a coordinated message from his top advisers. JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth each insisted Sunday that the U.S. was only interested in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
I think your misunderstanding the article. They’re not saying that Trump hasn’t called for everything and anything under the sun. They’re saying that after the bombing, trumps team was stating the attack was on their nuclear capabilities, then Trump throws out regime change.
The issue with this is that generally when you bomb someone, you are sending a message. If Trumps admin says one thing, then Trump declares another, it’s hard to know what the US actually wants and was trying to achieve with the bombings.
Its a similar issue with the tarrifs. Countries have met with the Trump admin to discuss tariffs, but the admin is struggling to define what they want, as Trump doesn’t have a plan/policy. This is causing frustrations with allies because we’re beating them up economically, but won’t tell them why or what it would take for us to stop.
Overall the issue is that Tumpisim may work on social media for constituents, but political messaging between countries generally requires more clear consistent messaging/communication.