Forget Regime Change. How About Behavior Change?

As President Donald Trump himself might put it: Many people are asking if he is going for regime change in Iran.

The massive U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in the country might suggest a simple “yes,” and that’s what many Iranians want to hear after decades of tyranny under the clerics in Tehran.

But as I’ve followed what Trump is doing and saying about Iran, I’ve come to realize he might be willing to eliminate the top ranks of a regime but still not remove it. Zoom out further — to Venezuela, Cuba and even Trump’s first term pressure on Iran — and there’s lots of evidence that Trump is eager to embrace novel ways of remaking a government he doesn’t like.

Remember: Trump isn’t a die-hard for democracy. He’s happy to work with authoritarians — from Saudi Arabia to El Salvador — if they do what he wants. One way to look at Trump’s approach is that he is willing to settle for changing the behavior of a regime if he can’t oust a whole regime. And the behavior he’s most interested in changing is how that regime deals with the United States.

“Our version of regime change is behavior change,” one U.S. official told me. “We’ve learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.” I granted the official anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to a reporter.

I’m not saying Trump has thought this all through; he keeps contradicting himself in interviews.

The semantics and nuances are confusing, too. I’ve heard everything from “regime change” to “regime collapse” in conversations with officials and analysts. Besides, how many people do you have to oust before a “regime” is gone? Could enough change in a regime’s behavior amount to a change of a regime?

Regimes, after all, aren’t just about the people running them. They’re also about how political power is obtained, allocated and used.

“‘Regime change’ requires a degree of state building that these guys don’t want to do,” argued Ali Vaez, a top Iran analyst with the International Crisis Group — “these guys” meaning Team Trump.

Vaez prefers the term “regime transformation” to describe what Trump is doing in Iran. That approach, he said, “means that the structure more or less remains in place but behavior changes in a way that it is in line with U.S. interests — not necessarily with U.S. values, but with U.S. interests.”

Trump’s attack on Iran shows he’s willing to take extraordinary risks to force a regime to do what he wants (once he figures out what that is). When compared to his moves in Venezuela and Cuba, it also shows that he is treating each country as distinct and is willing to tailor his tactics. That may get him the behavior change he seeks in all three.

At the moment, many of Trump’s U.S. aides and allies are avoiding the phrase “regime change” about Iran, despite Trump’s calls for Iranian citizens to “take over” their government.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday muddied the topic further when he said the U.S.-Israeli operation in Iran is “not a so-called regime change war, but the regime sure did change.” Some Trump allies, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), are dismissing the idea that the U.S. is responsible for what happens in Iran if the regime does fall.

The joint U.S.-Israeli operation in Iran has killed dozens of regime figures, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Israel has taken the lead on the assassinations but obviously with Trump’s blessing.)

The operation indicates that Trump — free from having to seek reelection and more comfortable in the role of commander-in-chief — feels unbound and willing to fundamentally reshape global dynamics. He’s been frank about the likelihood of many U.S. casualties and has said the campaign could last “four to five weeks,” or “far longer.”

His moves against Iran also are an escalation from how he approached the Islamic Republic in his first term. Back then, the Trump administration issued a list of demands on Tehran so expansive that it was as if they were asking the regime to change its DNA. (At the time, Trump aides said they sought behavior change.) Back then, Trump heaped sanctions on Iran instead of going to war, but that did not change the regime nor its overall behavior.

Still, even now, as he’s bombing them, Trump says he’s willing to negotiate with remnants of Iran’s Islamist leadership, a sign that he’s willing to keep the basic structure of the existing regime in place. (A top Iranian security official, Ali Larijani, said Monday on social media that Iran “will not negotiate with the United States.”) Trump also has mentioned having Iran’s armed forces “peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots” — whoever those are.

The bottom line is that, from what’s publicly known, the U.S. has no fresh government-in-a-box to put in Tehran once the strikes end.

Trump has said the U.S. is determined to take out Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and end its support for terrorist groups — all of which pose a threat to America’s national security.

Should what’s left of Iran’s regime agree to his demands on such issues, that might be enough behavior change for Trump to end the military phase.

Another possibility if it turns out Trump miscalculated the regime’s willingness to deal: He leaves behind a failed Iranian state whose land becomes a terrorist playground. Or Iran’s armed forces seize power in full, imposing a new tyranny. Neither bodes well for U.S. national security.

Still, even if the U.S. ends its military campaign in Iran, Trump isn’t likely to lift sanctions or reduce other leverage over Iran until he’s confident the country’s new leaders are keeping their word, the U.S. official told me.

Trump’s operation in Venezuela seems simple in comparison. The U.S. captured Venezuelan autocrat Nicolas Maduro in a fairly quick incursion and spirited him to New York on grounds that he was wanted in the United States for his alleged role in narco-trafficking.

Trump had Maduro’s ready-to-deal cronies to turn to, however. The remaining leadership, led by Delcy Rodríguez, has given the U.S. access to Venezuelan oil and taken other steps to gain his administration’s favor, including releasing some political prisoners.

The Venezuelan regime’s behavior is changing slowly, but it’s enough that Trump bragged about “our new friend and partner, Venezuela,” in his State of the Union address. Trump in particular seems to like Rodríguez, and with him a good personal relationship can go a long way. Just ask Vladimir Putin.

Trump’s willingness to flex America’s military might in Iran is surely being watched closely by Caracas. If the Iran operation goes well, Venezuela’s new-ish leadership has even more incentive to stay in Trump’s good graces. If the Iran operation becomes a quagmire, Venezuelan leaders may take advantage of a distracted United States.

Cuba, too, is watching Trump’s Middle East moves closely as the Trump administration ramps up pressure on its communist regime. Iran’s regime has been an important partner for Cuba (as well as Venezuela) and now that connection is in danger.

Trump has said his administration is in talks with representatives of the Cuban government. There’s no suggestion of a U.S. military attack, but the U.S. has upped economic sanctions on the impoverished island to an unusual degree, largely cutting off its access to oil and other crucial products.

Trump recently said the U.S. could stage a “friendly takeover” of Cuba.

That could involve some changes to the make-up of the regime, which is more of a collective leadership than what Maduro ran in Venezuela or Khamenei oversaw in Iran. More likely, though, based on what Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been saying in recent weeks, the U.S. will insist on economic reforms in Cuba first.

Rubio has long wanted to end the regime in Havana. But last month, Rubio told Bloomberg News that “Cuba’s fundamental problem is that it has no economy.” In remarks to reporters later in the month, Rubio even said that Cuba “doesn’t have to change all at once.“

“If they want to make those dramatic reforms that open the space for both economic and eventually political freedom for the people of Cuba, obviously the United States would love to see that. We’d be helpful,” he said.

Those economic changes could include Cuba privatizing some industries and permitting more foreign investment in exchange for easing of sanctions , the U.S. official told me. The U.S. could also push for the release of political prisoners. (I can already hear the screams of Barack Obama aides who say that was the same strategy they tried to use with Cuba and which Rubio fought against.)

Maybe the leaders of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela — well, the ones who survive — will change their regimes’ behavior enough to make Trump happy.

Perhaps they will eventually also change their behavior enough to allow for fundamental political changes that give their citizens more freedom.

Many people are hoping for that.