Trump muses about regime change in Iran after US strikes
US President Donald Trump on Sunday signalled support for a change in leadership in Iran, hours after his officials said that the US operation targeting Iranian nuclear facilities overnight was not about a regime change in Tehran.
Advertisement
'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump stated on his Truth Social platform.
Earlier on Sunday, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told journalists at the Pentagon that the overnight strike on the nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow was carried out to eliminate the threat to US interests posed by Iran's nuclear programme, not to bring about regime change in Tehran.
'The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear programme and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel,' Hegseth said.
01:23
China urges de-escalation of Iran conflict, hits out at US and Israel
China urges de-escalation of Iran conflict, hits out at US and Israel
US Vice-President J.D. Vance also emphasised that Iran's nuclear programme was the target. 'We are not at war with Iran, we are at war with Iran's nuclear programme,' he told NBC on Sunday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
US strikes on Iran set a troubling illegal precedent
After the United States bombed Iran's three nuclear facilities on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said its objective was a 'stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror.' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this justification, saying: The president authorised a precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel. Is this a legitimate justification for a state to launch an attack on another? I believe, looking at the evidence, it is not. Under the UN Charter, there are two ways in which a state can lawfully use force against another state: the UN Security Council authorizes force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security under Chapter 7 the right of self-defense when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51. On the first point, there was no UN Security Council authorisation for either Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council has long been concerned about Iran's nuclear program and adopted a series of resolutions related to it. However, none of those resolutions authorised the use of military force. With regard to self-defense, this right is activated if there is an armed attack against a nation. And there's no evidence of any recent Iranian attacks on the US. There have been incidents involving attacks on US assets by Iranian-backed proxy groups in the region, such as the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump made reference to historical incidents the US believes the Iranians were responsible for over the years. However, none of these actions is directly related to the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Another possible ground the US can use to mount a case for its bombardments is anticipatory or preemptive self-defense. Both of these aspects of self-defense are controversial. They have never been clearly endorsed by the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice. The US has sought to assert a fairly wide-ranging, robust interpretation of the right of self-defense over many years, including both anticipatory self-defense and preemptive self-defense (which is particularly relevant in the Iran strikes). The major point of distinction between the two is whether a potential attack is imminent. Anticipatory self-defense is in response to an attack on the brink of happening, such as when armed forces are massing on a border. Preemptive self-defense is a step further removed, before a genuine threat materializes. Famously, in 2002, the administration of President George W Bush adopted what is known as the 'Bush doctrine' following the September 11 terrorist attacks. This doctrine was framed around the notion of preemptive self-defense justifying a strike on another nation. This was one of the grounds the US used to justify its military intervention of Iraq in 2003 – that Iraq's alleged program of weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the US. However, this justification was widely discredited when no evidence of these weapons was found. With regard to Iran's nuclear program, an imminent threat would require two things: Iran having nuclear weapons capability, and an intent to use them. On capability, there have been debates about Iran's transparency with respect to its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But, importantly, the IAEA is the body that has the authorization and capability to make judgments about a nation's nuclear program. And it said, at this point in time, Iran did not yet have nuclear weapons capability. As Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA told the BBC: […]whereas until the early 2000s there used to be […] a structured and systematic effort in the direction of a nuclear device, that is not the case now. Trump's statement in which he referred to the US military operation against Iran's 'nuclear enrichment facilities' was particularly striking. There was no reference to weapons. So, even the language coming out of the White House does not make reference to Iran possessing weapons at this point in time. Trump's address to the nation after the Iran strikes. Further, many states have nuclear weapons capability, but they're not necessarily showing intent to use them. Iran has a long track record of aggressive rhetoric against Israel and the US. But the critical question here is whether this equates to an intent to strike. Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, also arguing for the need for anticipatory or preemptive self-defense to counter the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. If Israel is exercising its right to self-defense consistently with the UN Charter, as it claims, it can legitimately call on the assistance of its allies to mount what is known as 'collective self-defense' against an attack. On all the available evidence, there's no doubt the Israelis and Americans coordinated with respect to the US strikes on June 22. At face value, this is a case of collective self-defense. But, importantly, this right is only valid under international law if the original Israeli right to self-defense is legitimate. And here, we encounter the same legal difficulties as we do with the US claim of self-defense. Israel's claim of an imminent attack from Iran is very dubious and contentious on the facts. The overarching concern is these strikes can set a precedent. Other states can use this interpretation of the right of self-defense to launch anticipatory or preemptive strikes against other nations any time they want. If this practice is allowed to go unchecked and is not subject to widespread condemnation, it can seen by the international community as an endorsement – that this type of conduct is legitimate. There are many states acquiring conventional weapons that could be seen to pose a potential threat to their neighbors or other states. And there are several states considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons. One example is Japan, where there has been some debate about nuclear weapons as a deterrence to future possible threats from China. So, how might Japan's actions be seen by its neighbors – namely China and North Korea? And how might these countries respond in light of the precedent that's been set by the US and Israel? Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong has come out in support for the US action, saying 'we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' She hasn't, however, addressed the legality of the US strikes. The Albanese government should be discussing this. There's an expectation, in particular, on the part of Labor governments, given former leader Doc Evatt's role in the creation of the UN Charter, that they show strong support for the rules-based international order. Labor governments were very critical of the way in which the Howard government engaged in the US-led invasion of Iraq, asserting there was no basis for it under international law. Accordingly, there is an expectation that Labor governments should hold all states accountable for egregious breaches of international law. And, when viewed through the lens of international law, there's no other way you can characterize the US strikes on Iran. Donald Rothwell is professor of international law, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Behind Trump's flip-flop on Chinese student visas
President Donald Trump appears to have walked back plans for the US State Department to scrutinize and revoke visas for Chinese students studying in the country. On June 11, 2025, Trump posted on his social media platform TruthSocial that visas for Chinese students would continue and that they are welcome in the United States, as their presence 'has always been good with me!' The announcement came weeks after Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that his department would begin scrutinizing and revoking student visas for Chinese nationals with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, or whose studies are in critical fields. The contradictory moves have led to confusion among Chinese students attending college or considering studying in the United States. Over time, Chinese nationals have faced barriers to studying in the US. As a scholar who studies relations between the two nations, I argue that efforts to ban Chinese students in the United States are not unprecedented, and historically, they have come with consequences. Student visas under fire The Trump administration laid out the terms for revoking or denying student visas to Chinese nationals but then backtracked. Photo: STAP / Getty Images / The Conversation Since the late 1970s, millions of Chinese students have been granted visas to study at American universities. That total includes approximately 277,000 who studied in the United States in the 2023-2024 academic year. It is difficult to determine how many of these students would have been affected by a ban on visas for individuals with Chinese Community Party affiliations or in critical fields. Approximately 40% of all new members of the Chinese Communist Party each year are drawn from China's student population. And many universities in China have party connections or charters that emphasize party loyalty. The 'critical fields' at risk were not defined. A majority of Chinese students in the US are enrolled in math, technology, science and engineering fields. A long history Since the late 1970s, the number of Chinese students attending college in the U.S. has increased dramatically. Photo: Kenishiroite / Getty Images via The Conversation Yung Wing became the first Chinese student to graduate from a US university in 1852. Since then, millions of Chinese students have come to the US to study, supported by programs such as the 'Chinese Educational Mission,' Boxer Indemnity Fund scholarships and the Fulbright Program. The Institute for International Education in New York estimated the economic impact of Chinese students in the US at over US$14 billion a year. Chinese students tend to pay full tuition to their universities. At the graduate level, they perform vital roles in labs and classrooms. Just under half of all Chinese students attending college in the US are graduate students. However, there is a long history of equating Chinese migrants as invaders, spies or risks to national security. After the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, the US Department of Justice began to prevent Chinese scholars and students in STEM fields – science, technology, engineering and math – from returning to China by stopping them at US ports of entry and exit. They could be pulled aside when trying to board a flight or ship and their tickets canceled. In one infamous case, Chinese rocket scientist Qian Xuesen was arrested, harassed, ordered deported and prevented from leaving over five years from 1950 to 1955. In 1955, the United States and China began ambassadorial-level talks to negotiate repatriations from either country. After his experience, Qian became a much-lauded supporter of the Communist government and played an important role in the development of Chinese transcontinental missile technology. During the 1950s, the US Department of Justice raided Chinatown organizations looking for Chinese migrants who arrived under false names during the Chinese Exclusion Era, a period from the 1880s to 1940s when the US government placed tight restrictions on Chinese immigration into the country. A primary justification for the tactics was fear that the Chinese in the US would spy for their home country. Between 1949 and 1979, the US and China did not have normal diplomatic relations. The two nations recognized each other and exchanged ambassadors starting in January 1979. In the more than four decades since, the number of Chinese students in the US has increased dramatically. Anti-Chinese discrimination The idea of an outright ban on Chinese student visas has raised concerns about increased targeting of Chinese in the US for harassment. In 1999, Taiwanese-American scientist Wen Ho Lee was arrested on suspicion of using his position at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to spy for China. Lee remained imprisoned in solitary confinement for 278 days before he was released without a conviction. In 2018, during the first Trump administration, the Department of Justice launched its China Initiative. In its effort to weed out industrial, technological and corporate espionage, the initiative targeted many ethnic Chinese researchers and had a chilling effect on continued exchanges, but it secured no convictions for wrongdoing. Trump again expressed concerns last year that undocumented migrants from China might be coming to the United States to spy or 'build an army.' The repeated search for spies among Chinese migrants and residents in the US has created an atmosphere of fear for Chinese American communities. Broader foreign policy context An atmosphere of suspicion has altered the climate for Chinese international students. Photo: J Studios / Getty Images via The Conversation The US plan to revoke visas for students studying in the US and the Chinese response is being formed amid contentious debates over trade. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Lin Jian accused the US of violating an agreement on tariff reduction the two sides discussed in Geneva in May, citing the visa issues as one example. Trump has also complained that the Chinese violated agreements between the countries, and some reports suggest that the announcement on student visas was a negotiating tactic to change the Chinese stance on the export of rare earth minerals. When Trump announced his trade deal with China on June 11, he added a statement welcoming Chinese students. However, past practice shows that the atmosphere of uncertainty and suspicion may have already damaged the climate for Chinese international students, and at least some degree of increased scrutiny of student visas will likely continue regardless. Meredith Oyen is associate professor of history and Asian studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Standard
3 hours ago
- The Standard
Iran issues stark warning to Trump 'the gambler': We will end this war
U.S. President Donald Trump walks to board Marine One to depart from the White House en route to New Jersey, in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 20, 2025. (Reuters
