Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning "Regime Change" In Iran

It appears Rudy Giuliani wasn't lying.

Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump's unexpectedly let it slip that "we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]", the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. 

The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including - who else - National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans.

The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House.

It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. -Free Beacon

"The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command," SSG writes in the paper. "This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months" it further claims as an argument to push a "regime change" policy.

For now - at least - overthrowing the Iran government, with its extensive and close ties to the Kremlin, is not official US policy; SSG president Jim Hanson told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration does not want to engage in direct military intervention in Iran - and is instead focusing on other methods of ridding Iran of its "hardline ruling regime." 

"The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime," Hanson said. "But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran."

That will likely change, however.

One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime's grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change

"The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic," said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. "Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. It's now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo's job to put this consensus back in place."

The source tells the Beacon that Bolton is "acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region." 

"John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you're never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone," the source said, adding that "nothing's off the table right now if Israel is attacked."

That said, Bolton is confident that an Iranian regime change will occur in the next six months:

A second source tells The Beacon that the Trump administration recognizes that the "chief impediment to the region is Iran's tyrannical regime." 

"The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it's the Iranian regime," said the source. "Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way."

Regional sources who have spoken to SSG "tell us that Iranian social media is more outraged about internal oppression, such as the recent restrictions on Telegram, than about supporting or opposing the nuclear program. Iranian regime oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created the conditions for an effective campaign designed to splinter the Iranian state into component parts," the group states. -Free Beacon

"More than one third of Iran's population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence," the paper explains. "U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities." 

Without a regime change, the United States will continue face threats from Iranian forces stationed throughout the region, including in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.

"The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low," the plan states. "Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible."

That said, President Trump made clear earlier in the week that US officials must make efforts to differentiate between the people of Iran and its ruling regime.

"Any public discussion of these options, and any messaging about the Iranian regime in general, should make a bright line distinction between the theocratic regime along with its organs of oppression and the general populace," according to the plan. "We must constantly reinforce our support for removing the iron sandal from the necks of the people to allow them the freedom they deserve."



bananas y3maxx Thu, 05/10/2018 - 16:35 Permalink

Don't you just love the way Washington cares about the people of Iran?

Just the way they cared about the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon, and Afghanistan by destroying their countries and making their lives miserable just to please Israhell.

I think they learned about caring for people by watching how Israhell kills men, women and children with such Satanic ease. Israhell is so full of "caring" for the Palestinians it makes one weep - literally.

In reply to by y3maxx

PrayingMantis TheWholeYearInn Thu, 05/10/2018 - 16:50 Permalink


.... OJ doing the bidding of his masters ?


... it’s not a surprise if you look here... >>> https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/78896/trump-family-50-year-history-donating-jewish-israeli-causes/ 


... now you know why US embassy is moving to the capital of Palestine in Jerusalem ... 

>>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html ...

In reply to by TheWholeYearInn

JSBach1 booboo Thu, 05/10/2018 - 18:26 Permalink

Looks like we are headed for another color revolution in Iran (akin the the failed one of a few months ago):

New Elijah J. Magnier article:


Israel hits Syrian and Iranian objectives and weapons warehouses again (evacuated weeks before) for the fourth time in a month. 28 Israeli jets participated in the biggest attack since 1974. Tel Aviv informed the Russian leadership of its intentions without succeeding in stopping the Syrian leadership from responding. Actually, what is new is the location where Damascus decided to hit back: the occupied Golan Heights (20 rockets were fired at Israeli military positions).

Syria, in coordination with its Iranian allies (without taking into consideration Russian wishes) took a very audacious decision to fire back against Israeli targets in the Golan. This indicates that Damascus and its allies are ready to widen the battle, in response to continual Israeli provocations.


In reply to by booboo

Teja serotonindumptruck Thu, 05/10/2018 - 17:18 Permalink

Dream on. The Russians and the Iranians being "allies"? Just because they face the same adversary at the moment?

And all the Trump fans... outch it must hurt. You really got f'***ed in your a**. But probably they will say "oh he has only bad advisors, and is not informed properly". "Good Czar" syndrome, in the past more often seen in Russia and Germany. "Wenn das der Führer wüsste" - if only the Führer knew...

In reply to by serotonindumptruck

Billy the Poet serotonindumptruck Thu, 05/10/2018 - 17:20 Permalink

Putin is smart enough to know that he can only engage the Israelis on ground that is not Israeli. Any action on Israeli soil would guarantee a smackdown by the US and others.

The routing of Israel by Hezbollah a few years ago will be the model but this time it will be on a much more destructive scale.

Putin has limited resources and can't win a conventional war against the US. He and Assad are  playing opossum not because they want to but because they have to do so. Dead Israelis in Syria and Lebanon will be decried by the Zionist captured West but a major war will not ensue.

In reply to by serotonindumptruck

Posa Billy the Poet Thu, 05/10/2018 - 21:35 Permalink

Totally on the mark. Putin can't let Tel Aviv dictate timing and location of any showdown. Militarily, Putin is playing a much weaker hand; US/ NATO budget is 12x his. And furthermore, there are 30,000 NATO troops on his border, plus massive exercises with 100,000 troop on the move. Russia's only military move against these forces is tactical nukes, and cruise missiles across European capitals... but that only escalates to strategic missiles... and that means emptying put the entire Russian arsenal of 4,000 or so nukes... Putin, naturally, is reluctant to take that step... better to ally with China and allow the US to disintegrate on its own by standing firm.

In reply to by Billy the Poet

francis scott … serotonindumptruck Thu, 05/10/2018 - 17:46 Permalink

Before we can know if Russia will allow this

'war of naked aggression against Iran,' we

must make the determination that these

events in and around Syria are real and

not just the biggest act since Jack Lemon's 

in "Some Like It Hot"?


Then and only then should we consider

calling Putin's bluff about "escalating to



It makes no sense to start WWIII over

the successful tricking of the none-too-

bright Washington neocons.




In reply to by serotonindumptruck

exlcus serotonindumptruck Thu, 05/10/2018 - 18:04 Permalink

I think it's fairly obvious that after Netanyahu spent the whole day with Putin, and it was more or less civil, that Russia signed off on this attack.

It is puzzling, I've been wondering about it all day.

My guess is that Iran in Syria is the house guest that has overstayed their welcome. Assad can't want another army running around his country (unless he really needs them, like the Russians). Russia is not leaving so they probably don't want a third army in Syria. No doubt Iran thought they were in Syria for years to come.

Maybe Putin allowed the air strike to go through knowing they would intercept a full 3/4 of the missiles anyway. It was the best way to give Iran a slap across the back of the head to say, hey, get out of here.

I don't know though, out on a limb with this one.

Why doesn't Putin just sell the S400 to Syria? Every single Israeli pilot would be shitting their pants every time their wheels left the pavement if Putin did that.

In reply to by serotonindumptruck

Thraxite exlcus Thu, 05/10/2018 - 21:48 Permalink

I don't think the Russians signed off on it any more than President Xi did over cake when the US hit the Syrian airbase. Not responding to you know from your own people what is going on, is usually how they react, they don't respond in the same way that we do, their culture is more ... reserved than ours would be. Doesn't mean they won't respond and when they do, they generally mean what they say, they're not big users of hyperbole. 

In reply to by exlcus

Expendable Container francis scott … Thu, 05/10/2018 - 19:15 Permalink

General Wesley-Clark's words:




The US wars against mideast were planned long before 9/!!

(Wesley Clark - Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired 4-star army General)

see HERE

6 million Iranian people, fathers, mothers, children, babies, grandparents - are in mortal danger from evil United Zionist States of America - stop their planned holocaust!

In reply to by francis scott …

francis scott … Expendable Container Thu, 05/10/2018 - 20:07 Permalink

There are a lot of generals whose predictions

are not as wrong as Clark's.  After destroying

Iraq, their oil is not ours and the Iraqis wish

we were gone. 


Thanks to Putin, Syria has not fallen and may

wind up being just a place to kill civilians and

demonstrate high tech weapons of US&Russia


Lebanon, hasn't been taken out, nor has Libya

and Somalia, and while our proxy in South Sudan

has self-destructed, Sudan is still in Russia's camp.


Wesley Clark must have been at a talk by Paul

Wolfowitz during baby bush's term and parroted

Wolfowitz's pathetic doctrine. 




In reply to by Expendable Container

RationalLuddite Boubou Thu, 05/10/2018 - 18:08 Permalink

Agreed. There is so much victim blaming and straight delusional and conscious BS in this little piece that it could be used as an exemplar in a clinical psychology course. So much transparent nonesense belching and squirting out of F.UK.US Axis of Evil lately. Psychopathic and Narcissistic incontinence. No wonder Millennials and some of us misguided natives have integrated an inferiority complex to non western cultutes now - our leaders scream  splintered psyches in a hall of mirrors.

Gynocentrism and lack of lethal consequences for sociopaths needs to end, pronto. Hard Patriarchy or chaos is our future, me thinks.


In reply to by Boubou