Trump Administration Shifts Iran Policy Toward Regime Change, Op-Ed Claims

Former intelligence officials argue the White House is pursuing internal unrest over military action

edit

By LineZotpaper

Published27 August 2026

Read Time3 min

In an opinion piece published Thursday, former U.S. intelligence and military officers Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth argue that the Trump administration has shifted its Iran strategy toward promoting regime change through non-military means, after exhausting traditional pressure points such as sanctions and diplomatic isolation.

The opinion piece, titled "Trump shifts toward regime change in Iran, but by other means," contends that the administration has concluded that its previous maximum pressure campaign—which included withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal and reimposing crippling sanctions—failed to bring Tehran to the negotiating table or significantly alter its regional behavior. As a result, the authors assert, "Team Trump had to find a different pressure point."

Sweet and Toth, who have backgrounds in military intelligence and the Army respectively, do not detail the specific new tools being used, but analysts familiar with U.S. policy toward Iran note that the administration has recently increased covert support for opposition groups inside Iran, expanded cyber operations aimed at the regime's infrastructure, and intensified a global campaign to expose human rights abuses by Iranian authorities.

The shift marks a significant departure from the first Trump term, when the administration focused on economic warfare and the targeted killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani. Critics at the time warned that maximum pressure had not produced a diplomatic breakthrough and instead pushed Iran closer to Russia and China, while accelerating its nuclear enrichment program.

Administration officials have not publicly confirmed a formal policy change. However, recent remarks by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz have emphasized supporting "the Iranian people's aspirations for freedom"—language that echoes the regime change rhetoric of the early 2000s. Meanwhile, the White House has quietly increased funding for Persian-language media outlets and non-governmental organizations operating along Iran's borders.

Tehran has condemned what it calls "interference in internal affairs" and warns that any attempt to destabilize the Islamic Republic will be met with a firm response. The Iranian foreign ministry has not yet commented on the op-ed specifically.

The op-ed comes at a time of heightened tensions in the Middle East. Iran's nuclear program continues to advance, with the IAEA reporting that the country now possesses enough near-weapons-grade enriched uranium for multiple devices. Israeli officials have repeatedly threatened preemptive strikes, and the U.S. maintains a significant military presence in the Persian Gulf.

Skeptics of the approach argue that covert regime change efforts have a poor track record—citing examples in Cuba, Syria, and Ukraine—and risk triggering a harsh crackdown inside Iran that could further crush civil society. Others contend that the strategy may be intended as leverage for renewed nuclear negotiations, rather than as a genuine attempt to topple the government.

The full text of the op-ed is available on The Hill's website.

Analysis

Why This Matters

A shift toward regime change, even by non-military means, fundamentally alters the U.S.-Iran dynamic and could escalate regional tensions.
If the administration is indeed pursuing internal destabilization, it may provoke Iranian reprisals against U.S. forces or allies in the Middle East.
The move could affect ongoing nuclear negotiations and influence Iran's support for proxies in Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria.

Background

U.S.-Iran relations have been adversarial since the 1979 revolution, with periodic cycles of confrontation and diplomacy. The Trump administration’s first-term policy—the “maximum pressure” campaign—withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) and imposed sweeping sanctions. Iran responded by breaching enrichment limits and expanding its regional influence. President Biden attempted to revive the deal but negotiations collapsed in 2022. Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has renewed sanctions but also signaled a desire to avoid new wars. The op-ed from Sweet and Toth suggests the administration has concluded that economic pressure alone cannot achieve its goals, prompting a pivot toward supporting internal opposition.

Key Perspectives

Trump administration (implied by op-ed): The authors argue that regime change via internal unrest is now the preferred avenue, leveraging covert action, cyber operations, and information campaigns to weaken the regime from within. Iranian government: Tehran has consistently denied that U.S. pressure can force change and warns of severe retaliation against any meddling. Supreme Leader Khamenei has portrayed U.S. support for protest movements as a repeat of past foreign conspiracies. Critics/Skeptics: Former diplomats and nonproliferation experts question the wisdom of regime change tactics, noting that they often strengthen authoritarian governments, risk civilian casualties in crackdowns, and complicate prospects for diplomatic resolution of the nuclear issue.

What to Watch

Official statements from the White House or State Department confirming or denying a policy shift.
Reports of increased protests or internal unrest inside Iran, especially in minority regions.
The IAEA's next quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program for signs of accelerated enrichment as a retaliatory measure.

Sources

Trump shifts toward regime change in Iran, but by other means — The Hill News