Trump’s threats to “regime change” in Iran raise tension in the Middle East

The United States again give signs that they can dangerously climb their involvement in a war against Iran, intensifying instability in the Middle East and with possible global repercussions. Recent statements by former President Donald Trump and concrete actions of the US Armed Forces indicate an even more aggressive turn.

Trump directly suggested that he could order the murder of the current Iranian leader Ali Khamenei-repeating the logic used in 2020, when General Qasem Soleimani was killed by an American drone in Baghdad.

In addition to the words, the acts: Pentagon has confirmed the displacement of new anti -emissile batteries and war ships towards the Persian Gulf. The movement occurs amid growing tensions with Tehran, accused by Washington of supporting militias and resistance groups against Israel and against the military occupation of Palestinian territories.

Despite denying the involvement, White House was warned of Israeli plans. In an interview with Fox News last Friday (13), the day of Israel’s first attack on the Israeli capital, Trump said he knew that Israel would attack Tehran and stressed that Iran “cannot have a nuclear bomb.”

Air Force One

On Tuesday (17), Donald Trump gave signs that the US is ready to act against Iran. The president tried to give the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and said they won’t kill him “for now,” but “patience is running out.”

“I am not much in order to negotiate with Iran,” he told reporters aboard the Air Force One, returning earlier from the G7 summit in Canada.

Authorities said Trump abandoned the idea of ​​sending high employees to a mutually agreed place in the Middle East to meet with the Iranians and try to close an agreement on the nuclear program. “I hope their show will be eliminated long before that. They won’t have a nuclear weapon,” said Trump.

On his social network, Trump said he had no “peace conversation” with Iran. “This is just another false news completely invented! If they want to talk, they know how to find me. They should have accepted the agreement on the table,” said the US president.

According to New York Timesthe proposal calls for Iran to completely interrupt the enrichment of uranium and proposes the creation of a regional group to produce nuclear energy, which would include Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, besides the United States.

While embarking back to the US, Trump said he wants “a real end” for the conflict: “I’m not looking for a ceasefire, we are looking for something better than a ceasefire.” He emphasized that he wants Iran to “give in completely” and seek a “real end, not a ceasefire.”

“Change of regime” returns to western vocabulary

In line with Trump, Israeli award Benjamin Netanyahu has intensified the speech that the only solution to regional stability would be the overthrow of the Iranian government. In recent interviews, Netanyahu was explicit: “Iran needs to be neutralized, and the current regime removed. Without that, there will be no peace.”

Reinforcing this choir, Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Iranian Shah deposed by the 1979 Islamic Revolution, publicly declared that “the Ayatollah regime must fall for Iran to return to the western civilization.” Pahlavi, who lives in exile and maintains contact with sectors of US and Israeli intelligence, has gained space in western forums and media as an alleged alternative to the current Iranian government.

Risk of conflict expansion beyond the Middle East

The increase in tensions is not restricted to rhetoric. With the military siege being tight, the fear that Iran will respond with direct or indirect attacks through allied groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or Yemen. Analysts warn of the possibility of a regional conflict climbing quickly to a war of international dimensions.

European countries have shown concern about the US Blicist Range, but so far they have silent on movements that may violate international standards. Russia and China, in turn, have been reinforcing their alliance with Tehran, which increases the risk of a confrontation between nuclear powers in strategic territory.

Geopolitical interests behind the confrontation

The hardening of the discourse against Iran cannot be dissociated from the dispute over the control of energy routes and regional influence. The Strait of Ormuz, where about 20% of world oil passes, continues under constant military surveillance. Any conflict in this region can cause shocks in global oil prices, aggravating economic crises in various parts of the world.

In addition, Iran is part of the BRICS, a group of emerging countries that challenged the United States unipolar order. Rhetoric against Tehran is also part of this context, seeking to contain the advancement of multipolar projects and preserve strategic US hegemony in the Middle East.

Echoes of an announced war

The combination of explicit threats, military movement and discursive articulation for the “regime change” echoes the same mechanisms used in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. At that time, false allegations of imminent threat and appeals to the “liberation” of the Iraqi people were also mobilized. The balance, as is well known, was the destruction of the country, hundreds of thousands of dead and the emergence of new radical groups.

Given this, the warning between sectors of international diplomacy and civil society grows: a new war against Iran may not only fire the Middle East, but dive the world into another spiral of chaos and global insecurity.