On the 28th, the Trump administration began military actions against Iran in collaboration with Israel. This attack can be seen as a culmination of the administration's failure to achieve any significant diplomatic results following its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Despite intense diplomatic pressure aimed at eliciting concessions from Iran, the administration was unable to broker a new framework to replace the defunct agreement. The narrative surrounding the threat of nuclear development and missile capabilities from Iran has resurfaced in U.S. political discourse, suggesting an underlying goal of regime change in Tehran amidst a lack of a clear and coherent strategy.

Trump has publicly expressed the necessity of removing what he describes as an urgent threat from the Iranian regime, underscoring his position in a recently released video. In his address, he claimed that Iran was attempting to resume its nuclear ambition and continue developing long-range missiles. Emphasizing the might of the U.S. military, he urged the Iranian populace to take action against their government, echoing the administration's previous calls for a change in the Iranian regime. This aggressive stance marks a shift from negotiation to military engagement, raising concerns about the implications for regional stability and relations with Iran.

Following his reinstatement as president last February, Trump had declared his intention to apply 'maximum pressure' on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and cease supporting pro-Iranian militia groups in the Middle East. While the demands placed on Iran, including a halt to missile program development, were perceived as unacceptable, diplomatic engagement typically requires acknowledging the counterpart's regime in order to reach a consensus. The overt call for regime change indicates a significant departure from traditional diplomatic norms, potentially setting the stage for heightened conflict in the region and complicating any future negotiations with Tehran.