Regime Change by Proxy: Trump’s Calculus in Iran’s Nuclear Crisis
Exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi
Executive Summary
As Israel escalates its campaign against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the war’s trajectory hinges on whether the U.S., under President Trump, will directly intervene to destroy the fortified Fordow facility. While proponents frame a limited strike as the final blow needed to neutralize Iran’s nuclear ambitions, critics warn it risks dragging the U.S. into another regime change campaign, whether intended or not.
Analysis
The future of the Middle East—and Iran’s nuclear capabilities—now rests on a singular question: should the U.S. bomb Fordow? Israel’s recent pre-emptive strikes have crippled parts of Iran’s nuclear and military command structure, but the subterranean Fordow enrichment facility remains largely intact. As Iran retaliates with missile salvos, the U.S. faces pressure to deliver the decisive strike that Israel cannot.
Jonathan Panikoff argues that a U.S. strike on Fordow—conditional on Netanyahu agreeing to end the war—would dismantle Iran’s nuclear threat without engaging in full-scale regime change. Yet the potential for regional conflagration is high. Iran’s missile capacity could sustain months of attacks against Israeli and U.S. interests, and Gulf allies fear becoming collateral in a proxy war. Arab states that once favored “maximum pressure” now fear instability more than a nuclear Tehran.
On the other side, experts warn that even a narrow U.S. intervention could escalate uncontrollably. A strike might trigger asymmetric Iranian reprisals, including terror attacks against U.S. interests globally, and could pressure Trump into a deeper entanglement. The Atlantic Council cautions that this slippery slope could pull the U.S. back into the “regime change business”—a path Trump’s base vehemently opposes. Some Congressional Republicans and MAGA influencers are already pushing back.
The broader strategic dilemma is stark: a nuclear-capable Iran emboldened by survival, or a regional war ignited by escalation. The diplomatic off-ramp, if it exists, would require a multilateral embargo, inspections, and perhaps a face-saving enrichment consortium outside Iran. But that assumes Trump can balance his hawkish instincts with his promise to end endless wars.
Further complicating matters, exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi has called on Iranians to reclaim the country, fanning the flames of a potential internal uprising. While regime change is not U.S. policy, at least publicly, regional actors—including Israel—may not make that distinction so clearly.
Ultimately, even with Trump hesitant to commit militarily, the U.S. remains the key player in determining how—and when—this war ends.
