The Trump administration initiated Operation Epic Fury, transitioning into a ceasefire by day 38. President Trump attempted to conclude the conflict with military and diplomatic efforts, but Iran remained resilient. He shifted focus, imposing economic measures through sanctions and supporting these with a naval blockade at the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump announced an ‘Economic D-Day’ on Truth Social, declaring intentions to employ ‘economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale’ against Iran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated an expectation for both allies and rivals to support the intensified campaign.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed these threats, suggesting they would fail. China stressed the ineffectiveness of U.S. ‘sanctions and pressure,’ urging for political and diplomatic solutions, as stated by spokesperson Lin Jian.
The White House struggled to identify relevant parties within Iran’s regime, attempting negotiations with figures like Araghchi and parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Backdoor communications included Maj. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi of the IRGC.
Is Trump’s Economic D-Day just regime change repackaged?
From Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion’s inception, regime change was the goal. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vocalized this during speeches in February and March. The strategy aimed to inspire Iranian citizens to reclaim their nation, yet efforts to remove the Supreme Leader and advisors did not suffice.
The IRGC, Iran’s core power structure, remained intact, along with its controlling Basij paramilitary. Trump abandoned military campaigns for negotiation, leading to a ceasefire and pursuit of deals.
A 14-point memorandum and 60-day ceasefire were established but did not last, largely due to Iran’s differing negotiators. Hard-liners refused concessions over the Strait of Hormuz, enriched uranium, or nuclear ambitions, leveraging strait control.
Military exchanges persisted, with the regime unthreatened and focusing only on survival, disregarding public welfare. Trump’s administration faced a stalemate, searching for alternative pressures. Trump’s considerations were influenced by cautionary advice from Gen. Colin Powell to President George W. Bush during the Iraq war lead-up: ‘If you take out a regime, you’re responsible.’
Recognizing tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump hesitated over nation-building in Iran, preferring deals over removal. Yet, public uprisings in January 2026 demonstrated potential for regime change from within.
Protests originating in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, spurred by economic crises and currency collapse, expanded nationwide with anti-government demonstrations. Security forces imposed severe crackdowns, executing brutal repression and internet blackouts, resulting in significant civilian casualties and arrests.
Monday afternoon, Bessent announced Operation Economic Outcast. At the time of its initiation, the rial dropped drastically to 2.02 million against the U.S. dollar, reminiscent of conditions during the 2026 uprising.
Creating severe economic circumstances like those in January 2026 aims to incite a regime-overthrowing uprising. Setting conditions differs from having a plan for supporting and exploiting them. Will the administration effectively coordinate instruments of national power?
Col. Jonathan Sweet, a former military intelligence officer, served in U.S. European Command’s Intelligence Engagement Division. Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy. They founded INTREP360 and the INTREP360 Intelligence Report on Substack.