Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz has urged President Donald Trump to arm Iranian protesters, arguing that the ultimate goal of U.S. policy should be the collapse of the Tehran regime. Speaking on the "School of War" podcast hosted by national security analyst Aaron MacLean, Cruz advocated for providing weapons directly to citizens inside Iran to avoid deploying American ground troops.
Cruz first proposed arming demonstrators in late January, following a severe crackdown by Iranian authorities on the country's largest wave of protests in years. During that unrest, sources reported that at least 12,000 people were killed by the regime. A month after those events, the United States and Israel initiated military strikes against Iran. While the official objective of those strikes was to weaken Iran's conventional military capabilities and its nuclear program, President Trump simultaneously called on the Iranian public to take control of their government and depose the hardline clerical leadership that has held power since 1979.
In addition to arming citizens, Cruz emphasized the need to maintain intensive economic and military pressure on Tehran. He strongly criticized proposals to provide $300 billion to the nation. "You'll forgive me if I'm not terribly eager to give them $300 billion to facilitate their carrying out their stated intent of murdering us," Cruz said. "Giving them $300 billion is an exceptionally bad idea. It was a bad idea two months ago, it's a bad idea today and it would be a bad idea two months from now. So I hope we don't go down that road." Although the Trump administration clarified in June that the $300 billion in reconstruction funds would be voluntary and sourced from Gulf states and private investors rather than the U.S. government, Cruz remains opposed to easing the pressure. He instead recommended continued strikes on military targets and a strict blockade on Iranian ports to prevent oil exports.
"What I believe we should do, what I have urged President Trump repeatedly, what I've urged Israel to do repeatedly, is arm the protesters, give them the guns, to let them overthrow their own government so that it's not American boots on the ground, it's Iranians fighting for their own country," the senator said.
While the phrase "regime change" has drawn criticism for its association with the instability that followed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, Cruz dismissed concerns over who would lead Iran next. "I don't have a dog whether it's the son of the Shah, whether it is the [Mojahedin-e-Khalq opposition group], whether it is someone local, as long as they are not an Islamist who hates America and is actively trying to kill Americans," Cruz said, referring to exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi, whose father was overthrown as Iran's shah in 1979.
President Trump, however, has recently moderated his stance on toppling the regime and expressed a desire to have a say in selecting Iran's next leader. Trump has voiced skepticism regarding Pahlavi, noting in March that while the exiled prince "seems very nice," he added, "I don't know how he'd play within his own country."
The debate over Iran has highlighted a significant divide within the Republican Party between military interventionists and those skeptical of foreign entanglements. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has been a prominent critic, arguing that the conflict itself was a mistake. At the center of this debate is Vice President JD Vance, a key figure in past U.S.-Iran negotiations and a long-standing skeptic of military intervention. In an interview on Joe Rogan's podcast, Vance defended the administration's broader strategy while expressing frustration with hawkish figures who reject negotiations.
"I'm very frustrated by the Americans and, frankly, by people in other countries who are like, 'You cannot negotiate with the Iranians,'" Vance said. "Well, then, what is your proposal to get people to stop shooting at ships in the Strait of Hormuz? You can bomb them, you can take away their radar, you can take away some of their drones and some of their missiles, but it's just too easy to fire at ships in the strait. So you've got to actually be willing to talk and to try to figure out the problem."
For his part, Cruz rejected the label of an interventionist, arguing that his position falls between interventionism and isolationism. "I disagree with both the interventionist and the isolationists. I think the interventionists are too quick to send the Marines. That's their solution for everything," he said. "But I am most definitely not an isolationist. It is a dangerous world, and it is our military's job to prevent enemies of America from killing Americans."
