() President Donald Trump stated that he was considering a regime change in Iran. However, a source close to the White House told he would much rather strike a peace treaty than wage a potentially costly, bloody war.

Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “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!!!” 

A source close to the White House told on Monday that Trump has no desire to send U.S. troops into a war zone. 

“President Trump has no desire to send troops into another war zone; he wants to avoid that at all costs.  Iran isn’t sitting on some massive weapons stockpile. China doesn’t want to get dragged into this, and Russia is locked into Ukraine. That leaves Iran increasingly isolated, with drained resources and a crumbling regime.”  

The source added, “The president’s message is simple: They can either choose a bloodbath, or they can choose a deal. President Trump is far more interested in securing a historic agreement than escalating another conflict.”

Vice President JD Vance told ABC News, “We don’t want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program. That’s what the president set us out to do.”

A similar sentiment was echoed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stated on Sunday,  “We’re not into the regime change business here. We’re into the safety and security of the United States business.” 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt offered insight into Trump’s remarks, “The president was just simply raising a question that I think many people around the world are asking. If the Iranian regime refuses to engage in talks, why shouldn’t the Iranian people rise up against this brutal terrorist regime?”

The source close to The White House opined that, “we’re not under any illusions about turning Iran into a democracy overnight. What the president wants is a stable, functional outcome, one that stops the world from living on edge, especially our allies in Israel, who shouldn’t have to take cover in bomb shelters every day.”

Regime change could mean US troops in Iran: Retired Navy commander

Ward Carroll, a retired commander in the U.S. Navy with fifteen years of experience in F-14 Tomcats, and host of the Ward Carroll YouTube channel, told that the U.S. attack on Iran, “Midnight Hammer,” on Saturday was a “tactical military success” but the mention of a “regime change” raises his concern.”

 “The issue here is engaging in a forever war like we got into with Afghanistan when we conflated al Qaeda with the Taliban. There’s a big difference between conducting effective tactical strikes and nation building,” Carroll said to .

The retired Navy commander said it was a good thing the Iranian nuclear program was set back, but said a regime change would require boots on the ground. 

“The cost of that would be high in blood and treasure,” Carroll said. 

Mike Nelson, a retired Special Forces lieutenant colonel with extensive experience CENTCOM, said to that while a regime change would be good for the U.S., it’s not easily achievable. 

“If the President is pursuing regime change, that is a much heavier lift than what he has previously discussed and would require a lot of regional and international assistance with the transition,” Nelson said. 

Trump wants peace deal, not war with Iran: Source

The source close to the White House says that Trump would prefer a peace treaty with Iran rather than a lengthy war.

“President Trump sees the potential for another Abraham Accords-style peace deal. That’s what he wants: Real results, real peace,” they say. “He’s personally invested in finishing what he started and securing lasting stability in the Middle East.”