Trump Contradicts His Own Vice President On 'Regime Change' In Iran
'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!,' Trump wrote in a Sunday evening Truth Social post.
Trump's statements come after Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasized that US strikes on Iran were an 'intentionally limited' operation focused on eliminating the country's nuclear capabilities – and not fueling a larger conflict.
'Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change,' Vance said in a Sunday NBC News interview. 'This mission was not, and has not, been about regime change,' Hegseth told reporters during a Sunday briefing.
Trump's post on Sunday notably muddied the administration's position.
Last week, Trump had written that the US knew where Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was hiding, but that 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' Previously, Trump has also criticized the US's role in wars that spurred 'regime changes' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, has said that 'regime change' in Iran is not a goal of the attacks his country has launched, though it could be a 'result.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
7 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Kremlin Signals Putin-Trump Call Made Little Progress on Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump discussed Ukraine in phone talks on Thursday, with the Kremlin indicating that little progress was made in the US president's efforts to bring an end to the war. 'Donald Trump once again raised the question of an early cessation of hostilities,' Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters Thursday after the call that lasted almost one hour. Putin said Russia 'will not back down' from its war aims, Ushakov added.
Atlantic
13 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Congress Is Raising Electricity Bills to Pay for Tax Cuts
Of all the elements of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, perhaps none is as obviously self-defeating as getting rid of tax credits for clean energy. That decision will not simply set back the fight against climate change. Congressional Republicans could also be setting America up for the worst energy-affordability crisis since the 1970s. Unlike then, this time we'll have imposed it on ourselves. Electricity demand in the United States is rising faster than it has in at least two decades. AI data centers are using huge amounts of power to train new models. More Americans are plugging their electric cars and hybrids into the grid. Rising temperatures mean more air-conditioning use. Failure to meet this rising demand with adequate supply results in higher prices. From 2000 to 2022, U.S. electricity prices rose by an average of about 2.8 percent a year; since 2022, they have risen by 13 percent annually. Fortunately, the timing of this demand spike coincided with a boom in renewable energy. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, 93 percent of the electricity capacity added to the grid this year will come from a combination of wind, solar, and battery storage. That trend was set to accelerate dramatically in the coming years thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided tax credits that made building clean power sources cheaper. Investment in those sources has accordingly spiked, and hundreds of new projects could begin generating power over the next decade. The IRA is generally seen as a climate bill, but it was also an energy bill. It provided a jolt to the American power sector at a moment when the sector desperately needed new supply. Or so it seemed. The Senate version of Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill repeals the clean-energy tax credits in the IRA for all wind and solar projects that don't begin construction within a year of the bill's passage or become fully operational by 2028. (And even if a project begins construction in the first half of 2026, it will need to meet extremely onerous domestic-sourcing requirements that many experts believe will be nearly impossible to satisfy.) As a result, future clean-energy projects, including many that have been announced but not yet built, will cost about 50 percent more than those that received the credits, according to an analysis by Jesse Jenkins, who leads the Princeton ZERO Lab. The inevitable result is that far fewer will come into existence. 'It's hard to think of a bigger self-own,' Jenkins told me. 'We're effectively raising taxes on the country's main sources of new power at a time when electricity prices are already rising.' Jonathan Chait: They didn't have to do this The purported justification for these cuts is that renewables are unreliable energy sources pushed by woke environmentalists, and the country would be better served by doubling down on coal and natural gas. 'More wind and solar brings us the worst of two worlds: less reliable energy delivery and higher electric bills,' wrote Trump's Energy Secretary Chris Wright in an op-ed last week. In fact, renewable energy is cheap and getting cheaper. Even without the tax credits, the price of onshore wind has fallen by 70 percent, solar energy by 90 percent, and batteries by more than 90 percent over the past decade. The IRA, by making these sources even more affordable, was projected to save American consumers an average of $220 a year in the decade after its passage. The cost savings from renewables are so great that in Texas— Texas, mind you—all of the electricity growth over the past decade has come from wind and solar alone. This has made energy grids more reliable, not less. During the summer of 2023, the state faced several near failures of its electricity grid; officials had to call on residents to conserve energy. The state responded by building out new renewable energy sources to stabilize the grid. It worked. 'The electrical grid in Texas has breezed through a summer in which, despite milder temperatures, the state again reached record levels of energy demand,' The New York Times reported last September. 'It did so largely thanks to the substantial expansion of new solar farms.' In fact, the energy secretary's description of wind and solar—as unreliable and expensive—is more aptly applied to fossil fuels. Coal is so costly relative to other energy sources that investment in building new plants has dried up. The natural-gas industry is facing such a crippling supply-chain crisis that the wait time for a new gas turbine—the combustion engine that converts natural gas to usable energy—can be as long as seven years. 'What we've consistently heard from the industry is that, right now, there is just no way to get a new natural-gas plant running before 2030, and quite possibly even later,' Robbie Orvis, the senior director for modeling and analysis at the think tank Energy Innovation, told me. The cost of actually building one of those plants, meanwhile, has more than doubled in the past few years, pushing utilities to invest heavily in renewable sources, which can be built much faster and often at a lower cost. Now Congress has decided to kneecap the energy sources that are available to meet rising demand. Orvis predicts that this could result in one of the fastest, sharpest rises in energy prices since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, which featured record-high oil prices, long lines and rationing at gas stations, and a nationwide inflation spike. An Energy Innovation analysis of an earlier, similar version of the bill found that, by 2035, the average yearly energy bill will be $473 higher in Michigan, $590 higher in Maryland, $668 higher in California, and $777 higher in Texas than it would have been if the IRA credits had remained in place. (Several other sources have produced similar results, including analyses of the final Senate bill.) Blackouts and grid outages will become more frequent. Power-intensive industries such as AI and manufacturing will struggle under the weight of higher energy costs. China will solidify its dominance over clean-energy supply chains. 'Just think of Trump's own priorities: lower energy prices, becoming an AI superpower, reindustrializing America, outcompeting China,' Princeton's Jenkins said. 'Getting rid of these credits hurts all of those goals.' But there is one priority missing from that list: owning the libs. Partisan polarization around clean energy has grown so extreme since the passage of the IRA that Trump and many other Republicans apparently see destroying it as an end in itself. An earlier version of the Senate bill went further than repealing subsidies. It included an excise tax on solar and wind energy—the Republican Party, taxing energy—that would have added an additional 10–20 percent cost onto most projects. That provision was scrapped after a handful of moderate senators objected, but the fact that it ever existed is stunning enough. As the bill headed to the House of Representatives for final consideration, some members claimed that they wouldn't support it without even harsher restrictions on clean energy. Representative Chip Roy of Texas attacked the Senate bill for not targeting clean-energy tax credits more aggressively, calling it 'a deal-killer of an already bad deal' and setting up the absurd possibility that the IRA would be saved only by Republicans' inability to agree on how badly to eviscerate it. Jessica Riedl: Congressional Republicans might set off the debt bomb The desire to stick it to liberals is so intense that Republicans are evidently willing to inflict disproportionate economic pain on their own voters. The Energy Innovation analysis found that the states that will experience the sharpest increase in electricity costs as a result of the bill are Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, and Kentucky. A separate analysis found that of the 10 states that will lose the most total renewable energy capacity as a result of the repeal, nine voted for Trump last year. Congressional Republicans might be betting that the consequences of their legislation will take long enough to materialize that they won't be blamed. Thanks to the numerous clean-energy projects in the pipeline today, the sharpest energy-price increases won't come into effect until after 2030. By that time, a Democratic president could very well be in office, stuck with the higher energy costs sown by their predecessor, reaping the political whirlwind.
Atlantic
13 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Phoniest Job in Trump World
To hear Tucker Carlson tell it, an American attack on Iran wasn't just likely to precipitate World War III. It would do something worse: destroy Donald Trump's presidency. 'A strike on the Iranian nuclear sites will almost certainly result in thousands of American deaths at bases throughout the Middle East, and cost the United States tens of billions of dollars,' the conservative commentator wrote on X on March 17. 'Trump ran for president as a peace candidate,' Carlson added on June 4. 'It's why he won. A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his supporters. It would end his presidency.' 'We can't do this again, we'll tear the country apart,' declared Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist and 2016-campaign CEO, when asked on June 18 about potential war with Iran. 'Worth noting how rare this crossover actually is,' observed Curt Mills, the anti-war executive director of The American Conservative, after Carlson joined Bannon's podcast to oppose American intervention, dubbing the pair the 'two largest intellectual architects of the Trump years other than the president.' The implication: Trump was risking his base if he didn't stay out of the Israel-Iran conflict. 'I'm very concerned based on every[thing] I've seen in the grassroots the last few months that this will cause a massive schism in MAGA,' wrote Charlie Kirk, the head of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA. 'This is a White House that is responding in real time to its coalition,' which is 'revolting to show it's disgusted with the potential of war with Iran,' Mills told ABC News on June 21. That night, Trump bombed Iran. The U.S. strike may or may not have obliterated the country's nuclear facilities, but it has certainly obliterated the notion that any of the self-proclaimed MAGA intellectuals, such as Carlson and Bannon, speak for the Trump movement. Far from shattering the president's coalition, Trump's strike on Iran brought it together, despite the loud protestations of some of its supposed elites. 'This is Donald Trump's Republican Party,' CNN's chief data analyst, Harry Enten, said three days after the attack on Iran, referring to polls showing that 76 percent of GOP voters approved of Trump's action, compared with just 18 percent who didn't. 'Republicans are with Donald Trump on this, Tucker Carlson be darned. The bottom line is he does not speak for the majority of the Republican base.' Robert Kagan: American democracy might not survive war with Iran The conservative pollster Patrick Ruffini, whose 2023 book, Party of the People, predicted the shape of Trump's victorious 2024 coalition, offered a similar conclusion. 'Polling has been consistent that Republicans remain more committed to a posture of military strength—and MAGA Republicans more so, not less so, than other Republicans,' he told The Dispatch. Indeed, surveys before and after the attack found that self-described 'MAGA Republicans' were more likely than other Republicans to back the president on Iran. In other words, Trump's decision to strike the country's nuclear sites didn't just expose the Iranian regime's empty threats of massive retaliation. It also exposed prominent commentators who have postured as tribunes of Trumpism to be pretenders to power, purporting to speak for a movement that has little interest in their ideas. Watching the president dispense with his critics, the conservative influencer John Ekdahl quipped, 'Props to President Trump for being able to manage a two front war against Iran and Tucker Carlson.' But neither of these was ever much of a contest. Few jobs in Trump world are more farcical than the position of 'architect' of 'America First': There are no MAGA intellectuals, just Trump and opportunistic ideologues attempting to hitch their pet projects to his brand. The self-styled thought leaders of the Trump movement are merely political entrepreneurs trying to appropriate the president for their own purposes and to recast his chaotic and idiosyncratic decisions as reflections of their personal worldview. 'Considering that I'm the one that developed 'America First,' and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one that decides' what it means, Trump told my colleague Michael Scherer a week before the bombs dropped. The president was wrong about being the first to claim the mantle of 'America First,' but right about everything else. 'Trumpism' is not 'anti-war' or 'pro-worker,' 'neoconservative' or 'neo-isolationist,' or any other ideologically coherent category; it is whatever Trump says it is. This has always been the case, notwithstanding the pretenses of Trump's alleged intellectual allies. Back in 2017, Trump took office for the first time and brought along Bannon, who set up shop in the West Wing with a whiteboard full of goals for the new administration. Less than seven months later, however, Bannon was cast out of the White House. Not long after, Trump began publicly deriding him as 'Sloppy Steve.' Carlson has followed the same trajectory. The conservative podcast host spoke before Trump on the final night of the 2024 Republican National Convention and was seen as one of the big winners when the president returned to power. But again, Trump quickly tired of his ally's antics. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying,' the president said in response to the commentator's criticism of his Iran policy. 'Let him go get a television network and say it so people actually listen,' he added—a reference to Carlson being fired from Fox News. Trump then mocked his longtime associate as 'kooky Tucker Carlson' on Truth Social, and later claimed that Carlson called to apologize, something the latter has not denied, because whether it happened or not, he knows exactly where he stands. The simple truth is this: There is Bannonism and Tuckerism, and perhaps, in a quiet corner of the Naval Observatory that has been repeatedly swept for bugs to ensure that the boss isn't listening, J. D. Vance–ism. But there is no Trumpism without Trump. People in the president's orbit are not his confidants—they are his chumps, to be used or discarded when doing so suits the principal's purposes. Carlson seemingly knows this—and resents it. 'We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,' he texted his producer after the president lost reelection in 2020. 'I truly can't wait.' After the January 6 riot, Carlson texted: 'He's a demonic force, a destroyer. But he's not going to destroy us. I've been thinking about this every day for four years.' Off the record, people like Carlson not only know that they do not represent Trump, but hold him in contempt. Why, then, do so many still take them seriously as reflections of the president's perspective and coalition? And why does the myth of the Trump whisperer persist despite its manifest failure to explain events? For enterprising conservatives, the utility is clear. Trump may not subscribe to any of their ideas, but he can be prodded to act on them, and in any case, he is 79 years old and serving his second term. Once he departs the scene, his base will be up for grabs among those who have managed to position themselves as its champions. For some anti-Trump liberals, people like Bannon, Carlson, and Vance provide a perverse sort of reassurance. Trump's opponents may find the ideologies of these men to be odious, but at least they suggest a method to the president's madness. The presence of even a rough philosophical framework provides the false hope that what Trump will do next will be predictable and follow from first principles, rather than from haphazard impulse. Better, some may feel, to live in the realm of an evil but explicable king than in that of a demented one. Finally, Bannon and later Carlson may have played into the media's desire for an intellectual from their own class who could domesticate and interpret Trumpism in conventional terms. Rather than a boorish outsider winning the presidency on his own scattershot instincts, one could suppose there was a Svengali behind the scenes who had masterminded the whole affair. This belief imposed order on what appeared to be chaos, imputed logic to what otherwise looked like a personality cult, and thus rescued the prognosticating profession from a situation where its skills might no longer be of use. The only problem with this arrangement was that the pro-Trump intellectuals and influencers were making it all up. They were the political equivalent of the Wizard of Oz, shadows behind a curtain trying to fool people into thinking that they spoke for the president and his movement. But like Oz's projection, they were nothing more than an intimidating illusion. All it took to make them disappear was for Trump to turn on the lights.
