“To the great, proud people of Iran, the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump said in a video posted on X, repeating remarks he first delivered on February 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”
Six months ago, the statement represented an extraordinary signal from an American president at the opening of a war with the Islamic Republic. This time, however, it came without an accompanying policy, an explanation of what “when we are finished” means, or any indication that Washington is preparing to help Iranians take control of their government.
“I don't think the Iranian regime is going to care,” Eric Mandel, founder of the Middle East Political Information Network, told Iran International’s Eye for Iran podcast, whose conversation with him forms the basis of this analysis. “I think they've heard these messages before.”
Trump said this week that Iran was “limping along” and predicted that the conflict would end “immediately after” November’s midterm elections. In the same week, he also acknowledged that electoral considerations may be influencing decisions over whether to escalate military action against Iran.
That amounts to an American president publicly saying that the pace of a war is being determined partly by a domestic election.
At the same time, Trump’s senior advisers appear to be preparing for a substantially different timeline. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others have privately discussed the possibility that Tehran could withstand US pressure and that the conflict could continue through the end of Trump’s presidency in January 2029, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The same week therefore produced three conflicting timelines: freedom was “at hand,” the war could end “immediately after” the midterms, and the conflict could potentially outlast the administration.
If Trump is again telling Iranians that their government will soon be theirs to take, the question is what has changed since he first made the promise. Mandel’s answer was direct: “I haven't heard a new policy.”
For Mandel, the central problem is not the stated objective but the distance between the promise and any apparent means of achieving it.
“They can't ask the Iranian people to go out again into the streets and be slaughtered,” he said. The last time people came out in their millions, in January, security forces killed tens of thousands in two days.
If Washington genuinely wants the Islamic Republic to fall, Mandel argued that it would have to go well beyond public encouragement. He said the United States would need to bring together Iran’s fragmented opposition, finance strike funds so workers could stay home rather than confront security forces in the streets, tighten secondary sanctions on countries helping Tehran evade pressure, and provide material support to parts of the opposition.
“The Iranian people can't take over if they're unarmed and they are not having coordination,” he said. “If we're saying to the Iranian people to take over at that point, that just doesn't make any sense to me.”
Trump’s original February message came as the White House described Operation Epic Fury as an effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, degrade its proxy network and cripple its navy. The campaign was also tied to decades of confrontation between the two countries.
Even the operation’s name has since receded. The Pentagon said Epic Fury officially ended on May 5, and military personnel were later told to stop using the name for the continuing operations against Iran. The war, however, did not end with the name.
Nearly seven months later, oil is back above $100 a barrel, the political cost of the conflict is increasingly visible ahead of the midterms, and Trump’s advisers are contemplating a much longer confrontation than the president publicly predicts.
That makes the decision to resurrect the February message particularly striking and raises the question Mandel repeatedly returned to: who was it for?
Mandel did not believe the message was aimed at Tehran, which he described as being in “survival mode” and betting that it can outlast the administration. He also did not see it as a message to a weary American public.
“If it is for the American people, to my mind, it's the wrong way to present this,” he said.
Trump would need to explain why bringing down the Islamic Republic serves US security and why Americans should prepare for a long campaign, Mandel said, but he has not.
Without that explanation, increasingly dramatic language risks losing its force. “To the regime, it's like the boy who cried wolf,” Mandel said. “He keeps saying this every month.”
The video itself appeared deliberately produced, Mandel noted, making it difficult to dismiss as an impulsive post. But he could not identify what new message it was intended to convey.
“I don't get the message yet of what it is,” he said.
That may explain why an extraordinary statement received such an ordinary response. A US president once again told more than 90 million Iranians that their government may soon be theirs to take. What remains unclear is whether Washington was announcing an objective, offering encouragement, applying pressure, or repeating a promise the world has heard before.
About The Author
Comment List