Trump Privately Dreams of Iran Regime Change Glory as Democrats Cynically Weigh Political Benefits of War

Trump says he wants to be the president who takes down the Islamic Republic. Democratic leaders see him walking into a political trap of his own making ahead of the midterms.

Drop Site’s journalism is free to read because thousands of readers choose to fund it. If our work matters to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth looks on during a meeting of the Cabinet in the Cabinet Room of the White House on January 29, 2026 in Washington, DC. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

Since mid-January, as U.S. war planners have presented President Donald Trump with a spectrum of options for military action against Iran, Trump has repeatedly opined in private about his desire to go down in history as the president who “changed the Iranian regime” that has remained in power since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Sources with knowledge of internal White House deliberations told Drop Site that Trump is emboldened by what he sees as a phenomenal success in his Venezuela strategy—issuing sweeping demands for capitulation under threat of removing the ruling government and then abducting President Nicolás Maduro when he refused to obey.

But, the sources said, Trump and his aides have pressed war planners for assurances that chaos produced by any U.S. military action would calm down in time for the midterm election season to kick into high gear.

Trump has suggested to aides that he would make a deal with Iran if its leaders bend to his central demands but he stands ready to unleash a massive military operation—potentially including one aimed at assassinating Iran’s leadership—if they do not. Trump has said he may consider an initial round of attacks in an effort to push Iran to submit. In that event, the massive firepower in the region would remain if he decided to move forward with a broader war. Iranian officials say they are currently working on a formal response to the U.S. position laid out in Geneva on Tuesday during indirect talks, but have cautioned Iran has its own red lines. Tehran, meanwhile, told the United Nations it would consider U.S. bases “legitimate targets” if attacked, putting U.S. servicemembers at serious risk.

The potential for fallout in the event of a regime change war is at the heart of the meek response from Democrats, who see Trump walking into a trap of his own making. The Democratic political calculation was laid bare in an unusually frank conversation last June between a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and a top official in an organization opposing Iran strikes.

In June 2025, at the same time Trump was floating the possibility of a strike against Iran, he spoke positively about encouraging progress in ongoing nuclear talks—suggesting that if a deal was met, those strikes would be off.

Schumer responded by mocking the president as TACO Trump—using an acronym for “Trump Always Chickens Out,” a phrase describing Trump’s propensity to make major threats and then back away. For opponents of war with Iran, Schumer’s taunt was counterproductive, and a coalition of more than two dozen organizations sent a letter urging Schumer to delete the video and give Trump political space to reach a diplomatic solution.

The letter led to a phone call between one of the letter’s organizers and the top foreign policy aide to Schumer, who laid out the thinking of many Democrats in the Senate. The organizer who took the call agreed to share details of the conversation in exchange for anonymity. A congressional source briefed on the call shortly afterward confirmed the details. The foreign policy aide, whom Drop Site agreed not to name, explained that a substantial number of Senate Democrats believed Iran ultimately needed to be dealt with militarily. But those Democrats, the aide explained, also understood that going to war again in the Middle East would be a political catastrophe. That’s precisely why they wanted Trump to be the one to do it. The hope was that Iran would take a blow and so would Trump—a win-win for Democrats.

The aide claimed that Schumer did not share those views and opposed war with Iran. Schumer’s own rhetoric, however, including his TACO taunt, suggested the aide’s attempt to distance Schumer from the notion an Iran war would be politically advantageous for Democrats was perfunctory.

According to congressional records, the aide who offered the denials on behalf of Schumer has taken at least two trips to Israel in the past few years, paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s education arm.

Contacted by Drop Site, a Schumer spokesperson rejected the characterization of the call, asserting “Leader Schumer’s long standing support for a diplomatic solution as the best solution to Iran’s nefarious actions.”

Less than two weeks later, on June 13, Trump struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, kicking off 12 days of sustained bombing alongside Israel. The strikes killed more than 1,000 Iranians. Democrats made only modest objections. Indeed, Schumer offered justification for the attack. “I have long said that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” he said in a statement at the time. “Ensuring they never obtain one must remain a top national security priority.” Now, as Trump hurtles toward an even larger attack, the Democrats are strangely quiet—particularly the party leadership.

READ MORE: “This is Not a Dress Rehearsal”: U.S. Engaged in Massive Military Buildup as Threat To Bomb Iran Grows

Cynically, Schumer may also have the midterms in mind: If Trump manages to topple the Iranian government, the ensuing chaos could prove a drag on Trump as the country heads into the November elections. An attack would put American servicemembers at more serious risk than after past strikes, particularly if Iran makes good on its threats to unleash much heavier attacks than in its previous retaliatory strikes. And if the U.S. takes dozens, or even hundreds, of casualties as a result of Trump’s war of choice, that would also be damaging to the GOP. Trump’s America First base—promised their leader would end wars, not launch new ones—would see its divisions deepened, particularly around the increasingly polarizing subject of Israeli influence over Trump. The cost of a war in Iran, with likely thousands killed and a nation immiserated, has not registered so far with Democratic leaders as something worth consideration in the cost-benefit calculation.

Trump’s longtime foes in the neoconservative camp have embraced a similarly cynical calculation, seeing an attack on Iran—which they have long advocated for—as an obvious win, and also seeing the damage it would do to their populist enemies in the Republican coalition as a bonus. And “moderate” Republicans—like Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who regularly bucks Trump on other issues—are urging Trump to attack, warning of “empty promises” if he backs off.

While most Democrats have avoided commenting on the mounting threats of a U.S. war with Iran, the three top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, and Intelligence committees issued a joint statement Friday saying that Trump needed to seek congressional authorization before taking military action.

“We strongly oppose preemptive U.S. military action against Iran, which endangers U.S. personnel and risks drawing Israel and Gulf partners into a wider conflict. Absent a broader diplomatic framework, miliary strikes would be destabilizing, dangerous, and counterproductive to efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East.

“Absent a broader diplomatic framework, military strikes would be destabilizing, dangerous, and counterproductive to efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East,” said Reps. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Jim Himes (D-Conn.), in a statement on Friday. “Renewed talks with Tehran show that a diplomatic path remains open, which President Trump should not abandon for a short-term, unauthorized show of military force that leaves Americans less secure.”

Hill sources tell Drop Site that many Democrats remain convinced a war with Iran is both the right policy and beneficial politically for them.

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) are among the few members of Congress who have not only voiced opposition but have also taken action against an attack. The duo, who have been responsible for the release of the Epstein files, have teamed up again to call for a vote on a War Powers Resolution that will force every member to go on the record when it comes to a vote on the House floor next week.

War supporters Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), among the top allies of Israel in Congress, have come out against the resolution. Khanna responded by challenging them to debate their position publicly.

Trump’s ability to take out the senior leadership in Iran remains in question. In September, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian held a press briefing in New York City on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. He told the assembled reporters, Drop Site among them, that since the previous strikes his government had developed a much more sophisticated succession plan so that if Pezeshkian and many of his deputies were killed, it would be immediately clear who would become the new president.

In late January, moreover, Pezeshkian gathered provincial governors and his economy minister in Tehran in order to delegate emergency administrative powers to help maintain government continuity in the event war breaks out. The new measures, which include delegating a broader range of economic controls to the provincial level, were justified as a means of streamlining economic decision-making and “preventing hoarding.” They would also ensure government functioning in case of a breakdown of control by Tehran. “We are transferring authority to the provinces so that governors can contact the judiciary and officials in other organizations and make decisions themselves,” Pezeshkian said.