Elements within the Trump administration are reportedly debating the merits of supporting the downfall of Iran's government, a discussion that has gained urgency as the United States continues strikes against Iranian military targets. The internal debate is said to include exploring options to encourage internal uprisings and potentially reviving proposals to support armed Iranian opposition groups, such as Kurdish factions.
This strategic consideration presents President Donald Trump with a choice between maintaining military and economic pressure for concessions or pursuing the more ambitious objective of facilitating the removal of Iran's current leadership.
Despite the ongoing military actions, Trump has signaled an openness to diplomacy, stating that Iran is seeking to engage in talks. "They want to meet desperately to try and end it because they’re getting decimated," Trump told reporters. He added that the U.S. has "no interest" until Iran is ready to meet in a meaningful way, remarking that "Honestly, they haven't seen anything yet. We've been nice."
The White House has issued warnings that "violence will be met with violence." U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed on Friday, July 17, 2026, that it conducted airstrikes targeting Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and air-defense systems. These operations are part of an effort to curb Iran's ability to threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated on Sunday that the U.S. strikes are solely aimed at Iranian assets used to attack global commercial shipping, emphasizing that this remains the mission's objective.
Experts note a critical distinction between weakening the regime and making its collapse a formal military objective. Richard Goldberg, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, explained that while regime collapse is a long-term goal pursued through various forms of national power, it is not currently a military objective. He characterized current operations as focused on securing the Strait of Hormuz, with any escalation likely tied to that mission. Goldberg suggested that while some high-value targets, such as deeply buried nuclear facilities like Pickaxe Mountain, could be exceptions due to their strategic importance, most U.S. operations are designed to advance maritime security rather than initiate a campaign to overthrow the government. He added that the U.S. would welcome the regime's collapse but believes it is more likely to occur through economic pressure, covert action, and targeted decapitations over time. The potential confusion arises when CENTCOM targets assets crucial for the Hormuz mission but which could also provoke wider escalation, such as dual-use infrastructure or certain leadership figures.
Any move toward regime change would also raise complex questions about potential successors and whether Washington could support a political transition without becoming embroiled in another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.
One proposal reportedly discussed earlier in the conflict involved providing assistance to Iranian Kurdish groups operating near the Iraqi border. U.S. officials indicated to The Wall Street Journal in March that Trump had been open to supporting armed factions willing to fight Iran's government. The Washington Post also reported that the administration had contacted Kurdish leaders about potential assistance. Such groups could offer on-the-ground partners without the deployment of U.S. forces, but they face internal divisions, military limitations, and vulnerability to retaliation.
Majeed Gly, president of the American Kurdish Committee, observed that recent clashes involving Kurdish groups suggest a shift in how some opposition forces perceive the regime's strength. While cautioning against mistaking this for a full-scale uprising, Gly stated that the current actions should not be dismissed as routine border fighting. "What I’m hearing is, this is not business as usual," Gly told Fox News Digital. "This is not like periodic clashes on the border. This is operations, and it seems to be deep inside." He added, "What has changed is the perception of weakness of Iran. They are less afraid of the regime."
However, the broader Iranian opposition remains fragmented, comprising monarchists, ethnic movements, secular activists, and left-wing organizations, among others, who disagree on leadership and the structure of a future government. This fragmentation presents a persistent challenge, as widespread opposition to the Islamic Republic has not yet translated into a unified movement capable of replacing it.