WASHINGTON (Azat TV) – The United States, with Israel as its sole declared ally, has initiated military action against Iran, marking a significant escalation in regional tensions. This operation, which commenced on February 28, 2026, is explicitly aimed at regime change, according to statements from President Donald Trump, who called upon the Iranian populace to overthrow their government.
President Trump, in a recorded address, presented a broad array of historical grievances and accusations against the Iranian regime, ranging from killing American troops in Iraq to involvement in terrorism. However, he largely bypassed claims of immediate threats, instead framing the military intervention as a ‘war of choice’ rather than a preemptive strike. This approach diverges from traditional justifications for military force, signaling a direct intent to alter Iran’s political landscape.
Escalation and Regime Change Goals
The military operation represents a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Iran. While Washington and Jerusalem have cited ‘imminent’ threats to justify their actions, analysts, including those at The Atlantic, suggest these claims serve as a pretext for a long-sought objective: the removal of the current Iranian leadership. The U.S. finds itself with limited international backing for this endeavor, with Gulf Arab states, despite their own fears of Iran, not participating in the offensive.
This intervention follows a period of heightened internal repression within Iran. The regime has recently been accused of murdering thousands of its own citizens who were protesting for greater freedoms. This internal strife provides a complex backdrop to the external military pressure, with many among Iran’s 92 million people reportedly desiring the overthrow of their oppressive government.
Trump’s Rationale for Intervention
President Trump’s public call for an Iranian uprising underscores the regime change objective. His address laid out decades of alleged misconduct by Tehran, portraying the current leadership as fundamentally illegitimate. This direct appeal to the Iranian people suggests a strategy that combines military pressure with an attempt to catalyze internal dissent, hoping to accelerate the collapse of the clerical establishment.
The decision to engage militarily without explicit congressional approval or broad international coalition has drawn scrutiny, as noted by Axios. Historically, U.S. presidents have often bypassed Congress in deploying military force, but the scale and stated intent of this operation against Iran mark it as particularly consequential. The administration’s framing of the conflict as a discretionary ‘war of choice’ rather than a defensive necessity highlights the audacious nature of this strategic gamble.
Internal Dynamics and Regional Stance
The situation within Iran is characterized by deep-seated discontent, particularly following the regime’s violent suppression of recent protests. The hope from Washington is that external pressure, combined with Trump’s direct appeal, will empower these internal movements. However, the outcome remains highly uncertain, as the Iranian regime has demonstrated significant resilience and a willingness to use brutal force to maintain power.
Regionally, the operation has isolated the United States and Israel. While Gulf Arab states harbor strong animosity towards Iran, their decision to remain on the sidelines indicates a cautious approach, possibly reflecting concerns about the broader destabilizing effects of a direct conflict. This lack of participation from traditional regional allies complicates the strategic calculus for Washington and Jerusalem, placing a greater burden on their unilateral efforts.
The ongoing military action and the explicit call for regime change represent a high-stakes gamble by the United States, banking on internal Iranian discontent to complement external military pressure and achieve a dramatic geopolitical shift without broad international consensus.