US President Donald Trump has quietly walked away from one of the more provocative aspects of his earlier Iran rhetoric: the suggestion that Iranians might soon rise up and overthrow their government. In recent interviews, Trump has described such an outcome as “a very big hurdle” for a population without weapons, and has suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should understand the same reality. The shift marks a meaningful divergence from Netanyahu’s continued calls for Iranians to take matters into their own hands.
The retreat on regime change comes amid broader tensions in the US-Israel alliance sparked by Israel’s unilateral strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field. Trump said publicly he had told Netanyahu not to carry out the attack. Iran retaliated with strikes on regional energy infrastructure, driving up prices and alarming Gulf allies. Netanyahu agreed not to repeat the move but defended the original decision and maintained that the partnership with Washington remains strong.
Trump’s evolution on regime change reflects a narrowing of American ambition for the conflict. His core goal — preventing a nuclear-armed Iran — remains consistent, but the broader vision of toppling the Iranian government has faded from his public statements. Asked whether he supported Netanyahu’s calls for an uprising, Trump was explicitly skeptical, questioning whether it was a realistic expectation given Iranians’ lack of weapons.
Netanyahu, by contrast, has maintained a maximalist vision for the conflict. He sees the war as a generational opportunity to reshape the Middle East and has domestic political space to pursue that agenda. His calls for Iranians to challenge their government have been consistent and explicit — a direct contrast to Trump’s more cautious framing of what the conflict can realistically achieve.
The gap between these two positions is not merely rhetorical — it reflects genuine differences in what each leader considers an acceptable end state. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard confirmed to Congress that the two governments have articulated different objectives. Those differences will shape how both countries approach escalation, negotiation, and the endgame of a conflict that shows no immediate signs of resolution.