Trump Weighs Support for Iranian Militias as Regional Tensions Escalate

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is reportedly considering whether the United States should support militia groups inside Iran that are willing to help topple the country’s ruling regime, according to multiple media accounts citing administration officials and regional sources.

The deliberations come amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran following a series of U.S. and Israeli military strikes that targeted key Iranian military infrastructure and reportedly killed several senior commanders. While the White House has not formally announced any new strategy, officials have acknowledged that a range of options is under review as policymakers assess how to respond to Iran’s shifting political and military landscape.

The possibility of backing internal or border-based militia forces marks a potentially significant evolution in U.S. policy — one that could reshape not only America’s relationship with Iran, but also its broader posture across the Middle East.

Conversations With Kurdish Leaders

According to reporting by The Wall Street Journal, President Trump has spoken directly with prominent Kurdish leaders in Iraq, including Masoud Barzani and Bafel Talabani. The outreach reportedly took place shortly after the start of a U.S.-led bombing campaign targeting Iranian-linked assets.

The Kurdish factions in northern Iraq command sizable, well-organized forces, particularly along the mountainous Iraq–Iran border. Historically, Kurdish groups have had tense and at times adversarial relationships with Tehran, making them potential strategic partners in any broader effort to destabilize Iran’s central government.

While neither Kurdish leader publicly confirmed the substance of their discussions with Trump, regional observers say such engagement signals that Washington is exploring indirect pressure tactics that would avoid a large-scale ground deployment of U.S. troops.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the president has been in contact with “many regional partners,” though she declined to specify whether those conversations involved support for regime change efforts.

A Strategy Still in Formation

Administration officials, speaking anonymously to reporters, emphasized that no final decision has been made. The United States has not determined what form any potential assistance might take — whether arms transfers, intelligence sharing, logistical support, or diplomatic backing.

Policy experts note that supporting militias carries substantial risks. Proxy strategies have long been used in the Middle East, but they can produce unpredictable outcomes. Militias may pursue their own agendas, potentially diverging from U.S. objectives once empowered.

Moreover, direct involvement in efforts to remove Iran’s leadership could escalate hostilities, provoke retaliation against U.S. forces in the region, or complicate relations with European allies wary of broader war.

Still, proponents inside the administration reportedly argue that Iran’s current vulnerability presents a rare strategic opening.

Iran’s Internal Pressures

Iran has faced mounting internal and external pressures in recent months. U.S. and Israeli strikes have targeted senior figures linked to Iran’s military command structure, weakening segments of its security apparatus. Economic sanctions continue to strain the country’s economy, contributing to inflation, currency instability, and periodic domestic unrest.

President Trump has publicly urged the Iranian people to overthrow their leaders, framing recent events as evidence that the regime is faltering. Speaking to reporters at the White House, he suggested that many of the individuals Washington had “in mind” are now dead as a result of the strikes.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said. “And now we have another group, they may be dead also. Pretty soon we’re not going to know anybody.”

Such remarks reflect a blunt approach that has characterized Trump’s foreign policy style. Supporters argue that projecting strength deters adversaries; critics contend that the rhetoric risks inflaming tensions and narrowing diplomatic off-ramps.

Regional Implications

The idea of backing militias raises broader questions about who might govern Iran if its current leadership were to collapse. According to reports, U.S. officials are evaluating multiple scenarios for succession, including the possibility of fragmented authority among competing factions.

Kurdish militias, while formidable in their own regions, do not represent Iran’s majority population. Ethnic, religious, and political divisions within Iran complicate any straightforward path to regime change.

Neighboring countries are watching closely. Iraq, Turkey, and Gulf states all have significant interests in how events unfold. A power vacuum in Tehran could reshape alliances, alter energy markets, and trigger cross-border instability.

Israel, which has long viewed Iran as its primary regional adversary, would likely see strategic advantage in a weakened Iranian regime. However, Israeli officials have also warned that prolonged instability could empower hardline factions or non-state actors.

Domestic Political Context