Charlie Kirk Warned Regime Change in Iran Would Be a "Huge Mistake"
Kirk warned intervention could “trigger another refugee crisis coming to the West.”
In June 2025, just months before his assassination, American political commentator Charlie Kirk addressed the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran, warning that regime change would be a “HUGE mistake.”
Kirk said, “We were told all along by US lawmakers that we need to take out the Iranian nuclear programme, and you can make a good argument for that.” He added, “You can make an argument that Israel has wanted to do that for quite some time.”
However, he noted operational limits, stating, “It’s becoming more and more clear to the surface that Israel will not be able to finish the fight unless American B-52 bunker-busting bombs will get involved.”
He continued, “You can hold that position, and you can hope for the best. You can hope that there is a strike, and we get in, and we get out, and we use the Moab and a 30,000, 40,000 pound bomb, 30,000 pound bomb, and it works perfectly, and hopefully no US troops die in response. I can understand that argument. I really can.”
However, Kirk warned that the public debate had shifted. “If you watch carefully and closely amongst the Washington DC and neoconservative, neo-imperialist class, especially in the Republican Party, they’ve kind of shifted gears here. They’ve shifted gears from Iran should not have a nuclear weapon to Iran should not have an Ayatollah.” He added, “They’ve tried to ever so subtly shift the Overton window as if we weren’t paying attention.”
He described what he viewed as a progression in messaging: “First, it was that Israel is going to take out the nuclear weapon, and then it was, well, America is going to help Israel take out the nuclear weapon. Still the same theme… one that is defensible if done correctly and prudently.” He said he had “some caution towards that intervention,” but added, “I can get behind that if President Trump executes in a way that only he can.”
Kirk then said, “They’re trying to pull a switcheroo.” He criticised “neoconservative” foreign policy advocates, saying, “The neocons that have been wrong about every major foreign policy decision of the last 20 years, they were wrong about Afghanistan. They were wrong about Iraq. They were wrong about Libya. They were wrong about Syria. They were wrong about the Arab Spring. The entire Middle East is filled. It is at capacity with their failures.” He added, “You cannot point to a random Middle East country without seeing somewhere that John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, and the entire gang of ferocious neoconservatives have messed up.”
Kirk stated, “We were told it’s all about nuclear weapons, but it seems as if there is a more aggressive push to get rid of the Ayatollah.” Regarding Iranian self-determination, Kirk said: “Of course, we on this programme, want to see the people of Persia resume self-determination… If the people of Persia want to take back their government organically, authentically, from the ground up, we will be cheering them on. Of course we will.”
However, he distinguished that from foreign intervention: “But Western forced central planning regime change is if we are just going to take out the Ayatollah, oh really? What comes next? What comes after regime change?” He continued, “Might be, oh, well, we need a small number of U.S. troops to support the new regime. And then, well, the new regime needs our financial support, then okay, then we need a few more U.S. troops.
“We have seen this play before,” he said.
Kirk warned of potential costs. “The best case scenario is probably 5,000 U.S. troops and 100 billion dollars. The most probable scenario is a bloody civil war that results in a couple of hundred thousand people dead.” He added, “Iran is a country of 92 million people. Let me repeat, Iran is a country of 92 million people. It’s two and a half times the size of Texas… It is a beast of a country.” He went on to warn that intervention could “trigger another refugee crisis coming to the West.”
He played remarks from Senator Graham, noting again how quickly “take out the nuclear programme” shifted to “regime change.” Graham said: “I would like to see this regime fall… If we don’t take out their nuclear programme now, we’ll all regret it.” In another clip, Graham said, “Taking the Ayatollah’s regime down is a good thing, not a bad thing. And I’m willing to risk what happens next because I know what’s going to happen if they stay in power.”
Responding to Graham’s comments, Kirk said, “That is such an immature, shallow, sloppy, irresponsible, insane, frenetic approach from a US lawmaker.” He added, “The first rule of foreign policy is you must enter things with humility… You don’t know how things are going to work out.” He cited past conflicts, stating that similar assumptions contributed to “the quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan,” and noted that “600,000 people died in the Syrian civil war, resulting in six million refugees,” referring to the conflict in Syria.
Kirk concluded by separating the nuclear issue from regime change. “It’s not about taking out the nuclear programme. That’s a separate topic. You could support that. That is defensible.” He added, “It is indefensible, after everything we’ve seen the last 25 years, to start beating the drums for regime change at yet another Middle Eastern country, this one being the biggest of all we have dared to get involved in.”
So, what do you think? Does Charlie make a valid point?