President Donald Trump sparked controversy by openly endorsing protests against the Iranian regime, where thousands of demonstrators defied the ayatollahs’ crackdown that sources say left up to 3,000 dead. On his favorite social network, Trump urged dissidents to “persist” and write down the names of the repressors because “they will pay a high price,” closing with an explicit message: “Help is on the way.”
From denouncing the “eternal wars” to opening the door to Iran
As a candidate and as president, Trump made criticism of US military interventions one of the axes of his foreign policy speech, promising that “great nations do not fight eternal wars” and that he would end open campaigns in the Middle East. He repeatedly maintained that the invasion of Iraq was “a disaster” and claimed that he had opposed it from the beginning, even though interview records show lukewarm support and changes in position over time.
This story against the “endless wars” helped him present himself as a leader willing to withdraw troops and abandon the policy of regime change that he attributes to the “globalist” elites in Washington. However, his Administration’s latest moves regarding the repression of protests in Iran point in the opposite direction, with increasingly clear signs that it is contemplating some type of US intervention in the country.
The message of hope to Iranians
In the midst of a wave of demonstrations against the ayatollah regime, Trump called on Iranian protesters to “keep protesting” and “take control of the institutions,” while asking them to save the names of “the murderers and abusers.” In that same message he announced the cancellation of all contacts with Iranian representatives “until the senseless murders stop” and closed with his promise of help to the Iranian people.
The formulation was interpreted as a warning that the White House is studying options that go beyond diplomatic pressure, including possible military actions against the Iranian leadership or its strategic installations. Trump convened his National Security Cabinet to evaluate the situation and the catalog of military options, while the markets reacted with increases in the price of oil due to fear of an escalation in the Gulf.
From Iraq and Libya to Venezuela: the history of turns
The apparent contradiction is not new in the Republican president’s record. Regarding Iraq, Trump today defends that he was one of the first to warn that the invasion would “totally destabilize the Middle East,” but files reflect that in 2002 he expressed support before turning to a critical stance from 2004.
Something similar happened with Libya: years after endorsing an intervention against Gaddafi, he denied having defended it.
More recently, his promise to end “forever wars” coexisted with decisions such as attacks in Syria, strikes against Iranian targets or the capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, an example of direct intervention that contradicts his anti-interventionist rhetoric.
The clash between “anti-war” rhetoric and practice
Analysts emphasize that the key lies in how Trump defines what an “forever war” is: while he denounces large deployments of troops, he is willing to carry out airstrikes, covert operations or support opponents if he perceives an opportunity to overthrow hostile governments.
In Iran, his messages to the protesters and “Help is on its way” paint a scenario where Washington positions itself as a direct actor in a possible internal transition. All this while Trump claims to avoid prolonged military adventures, a tension that fuels the debate over whether his foreign policy really broke with interventionism or only reconfigured it.
