President Donald Trump’s “regime change” post stunned the political media world, but it isn’t the yuge “GOTCHA!” they’re all making it out to be.

The world was stunned Saturday night when President Donald Trump announced a series of U.S. airstrikes on nuclear sites in Iran. The strikes touched off waves of criticism and approval, as well as objections from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

Trump also raised eyebrows with a Truth Social post referencing “regime change” even as his officials tried to assure the public that overthrow is not the goal of this mission.

The president wrote, “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??? MIGA!!!”

A president merely invoking “regime change” itself is provocative, shocking even if it were anybody else, reckless even for Trump. And his comment came after the highest officials in his own administration had just gotten done assuring everyone that the United States is not trying to enact regime change.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters at a press conference that the U.S. mission in Iran was “not and has not been about regime change.”

Vice President JD Vance made the same point in an exchange on this week’s edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, and appeared to rule out assassinating Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

KRISTEN WELKER: As you know, after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in Israel this week, Israel’s defense minister said the Ayatollah, quote, “can no longer be allowed to exist.” Does the United States support Israel killing Iran’s leader?

VICE PRES. JD VANCE: Well, look, that’s up to the Israelis, but our view has been very clear that we don’t want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it’s already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here. We believe very strongly that there are two pathways: there’s a pathway where Iran continues to fund terrorism, continues to try to build a nuclear program, attacks American troops — that’s the bad pathway for Iran, and it will be met with overwhelming force.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Face the Nation that “this mission was a very precise mission.” It had three objectives, three nuclear sites. It was not an attack on Iran. It was not an attack on the Iranian people. This wasn’t a regime change move. This was designed to degrade and/or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions.

Cable news figures seized on Trump’s post as yet another example of the president contradicting his own administration, as he did after Rubio tried to distance the U.S. from the Israeli strikes that touched off this latest conflict. CNN, in particular, played the post as a gotcha example of Trump undermining his own guys.

Now, there are lots of things to hate about how Trump is handling this whole thing. Congressmembers on both sides of the aisle have called the strikes unconstitutional, the risks of significant blowback are severe and potentially devastating, and the net effect of the strikes is still unclear. And as I said before, just name-dropping “regime change” is reckless.

But the meaning of Trump’s post was clear even before White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained it to the Fox & Friends  gang Monday morning:

KILMEADE: So, the President tweeted out the next day, and I agree with you, by the way, and I think most everyone watching does, says 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? Does he think we should do that? Is he asking the Iranian people to do that? What’s he saying there?

LEAVITT: The president believes the Iranian people can control their own destiny. And what he said last night makes complete sense. If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful diplomatic solution, which the president is still interested and engaging in, by the way, why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for decades?

And so, our posture has not changed. Our military posture has not changed. These were decisive precision strikes that were successful on Saturday evening. But the president is just simply raising a good question that many people around the world are asking.

As much as it pains me to ever agree with Leavitt, she’s spot-on here. Now, the message is quite a bit more provocative than merely asking a question — it is a full-on incitement, an incitement for Iranians to take regime change into their own hands — but it is not a contradiction of the military policy stated by his top officials.

And Trump’s post is not all that different from a declaration that then-President Joe Biden made in 2022 when he spotted a protest sign in a crowd and said, “Don’t worry. We’re gonna free Iran. They’re gonna free themselves pretty soon.”

The media seized on that one, too, but it was the result of a hard-learned lesson from his stint as VP, when President Barack Obama failed to strongly support the “Green Revolution” protest movement.

Minutes after her Fox hit, Leavitt was asked about assassinating Khamenei as she spoke briefly to reporters on her way up the White House driveway:

REPORTER: On regime change, that question of– if the president was supporting that idea of having Iran’s supreme leader assassinated, he’s now floating his idea of regime change. Is that an idea that he would consider?

TRUMP PRESS SECRETARY KAROLINE LEAVITT: I’m not going to get ahead of the president.

Trump has no public events scheduled Monday, but God only knows what he’ll say if that question gets put to him. He’s previously threatened Khamenei, writing last week that “We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

So, who really cares if cable is overselling this post? That’s an excellent question, the answer is probably not that many people. But it matters. It matters because the stakes of this conflict could not be higher, and the media plays a significant role in holding Trump to account. The more time wasted criticizing something needlessly, the less time is being spent on legitimate reasons to criticize.

The best-case scenario here is that this series of attacks is a flawless strategic and political success, Iran folds up like a cheap umbrella, and nobody else has to get killed.

But that’s also sort of the worst-case scenario in that success will make it much harder to hold Trump accountable for what many agree is a grossly unconstitutional act. Trump‘s critics, myself included, are complete in their certainty that launching these strikes without congressional approval was completely unconstitutional and lawless. But as the last few years have shown us, this Supreme Court, or at least the six pro-Trump justices, have shown a fervent willingness to radically rewrite the law in favor of presidential power, and Congress has given them ammunition for nearly a quarter century since the attacks of 9/11.

The worst-case scenarios for blowback are staggering to contemplate. Proxy attacks on U.S. forces in the region, terrorist attacks by sleeper cells in the United States, more assassination attempts against our head of state, descent into a Middle East shooting war, and even nuclear war are just a few of the things on the menu. All the more reason extra attention should be paid to strengthening checks and balances on the president’s war powers, rather than hyping a fake “gotcha!”

Watch above via Fox & Friends.

The post Trump’s Stunning ‘Regime Change’ Post Isn’t Yuge ‘Gotcha!’ Despite Media Hype first appeared on Mediaite.

from Mediaite https://ift.tt/t1fO7gX