Trump's Iran Strikes: From Anti-War Crusader to Regime Changer

"Trump's Best Foreign Policy? Not Starting Any Wars." That was the title of JD Vance's op-ed endorsing Trump in 2023. On February 28, 2026, those words rang hollow as President Trump launched major airstrikes on Iran alongside Israel, openly calling for regime change in Tehran.

The man who spent over a decade deriding his predecessors for reckless foreign interventions has now embarked on exactly the kind of regime change war he once condemned. The candidate who called the Iraq War "possibly the worst decision in presidential history" is now walking a strikingly similar path.

The Peace Candidate's Transformation

Trump's anti-war credentials seemed solid. In 2016, he distinguished himself from Republican rivals by calling Iraq a mistake. Against Hillary Clinton, who had backed the Iraq War as a senator, many viewed him as the less hawkish option. In 2024, he again campaigned as a non-interventionist, blasting Washington's foreign policy establishment for sending American troops to die in foreign wars.

His supporters eagerly canonized him as the "peace" candidate. Vance wrote that not starting wars was "perhaps a low bar, but that's a reflection of the hawkishness of Mr. Trump's predecessors." As vice president, Vance said on podcasts that "our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran."

Yet Trump's second term has been anything but dovish: major air campaigns in Yemen, earlier Iran strikes, Venezuelan regime decapitation, extensive Somalia operations, and threats to forcibly annex Greenland.

Moving Goalposts

While a few "America First" supporters like former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene broke with Trump over these policies, most non-interventionists in his orbit have shifted the goalposts. Their new argument: even if Trump's foreign policy is interventionist, the interventions are short, sharp campaigns with limited objectives and—crucially—few US casualties.

It's "gunboat diplomacy" rather than nation-building, they claim. Vance told the Washington Post Thursday that while attacking Iran might be necessary to prevent nuclear weapons acquisition, there would be no "Middle Eastern war for years with no end in sight." The difference, he's argued, is that previous presidents were "dumb" and got America stuck in unwinnable quagmires.

Iraq 2003 Déjà Vu

But the comparisons to Bush's Iraq invasion are unavoidable. Just as the Bush administration promoted false claims about Iraqi weapons programs, Trump's team has spent weeks hyping unproven assertions about Iran's missile and nuclear capabilities—claims that contradict Trump's own statements about "obliterating" Iran's nuclear program last summer.

The Israeli military's description of these as "preemptive attacks" echoes Iraq-era language. Like "Operation Midnight Hammer" last summer, bombs started falling while the US and Iran were still negotiating over Tehran's nuclear program—yesterday, tentative progress seemed possible.

Trump's calls for Iranians to rise up against their regime echo George H.W. Bush's 1991 appeal for Iraqis to "take matters into their own hands." Tens of thousands were later killed when the US left Saddam Hussein in power, allowing the dictator to crush Kurdish uprisings with attack helicopters.

The Eternal Middle East Temptation

Every US president since Jimmy Carter has ordered military operations in the Middle East. Every president since George W. Bush has done so while vowing to extricate America from regional conflicts to focus on bigger priorities.

Trump's National Security Strategy, released in November, emphasized the Western Hemisphere over overseas conflicts. The brief Middle East section concluded that with greater energy independence, "America's historic reason for focusing on the Middle East will recede." Iran had been "greatly weakened," the document claimed.

Yet here we are. Regime change advocates argue this is a historic opportunity—that while intervention risks destabilization, the Iranian regime itself has been destabilizing for decades, and it's worth acting now when Tehran is at its weakest.

It's hard to begrudge those who've suffered under Iran's repressive rule from hoping that US and Israeli airpower might topple this house of cards and create space for a better Iran and Middle East.

The Familiar Logic

But this is precisely the logic Americans heard—and largely rejected—in the 21st century's previous interventions. The promise of quick, clean regime change. The assurance that this time will be different. The belief that military pressure alone can reshape complex societies.

With strikes already targeting Iranian leadership compounds, including those used by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this looks like regime change warfare. "All I want is freedom for the people," Trump told the Washington Post Saturday—words that could have been spoken by any interventionist president.

True, no US ground troops are committed yet. Trump has shown willingness to walk away from military operations with limited wins. But Iranian retaliation against US assets appears larger than last summer's operation. Trump himself warned Saturday that "the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost."