Senator Ted Cruz asserted in a February 20, 2026 interview on Hannity that President Donald Trump has issued an ultimatum to Iran’s leadership, demanding that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior clerics relinquish power or be forcibly removed—a claim that has not been formally confirmed by the White House. Cruz drew a parallel to the Operation Absolute Resolve special forces raid in January that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, framing the supposed ultimatum as part of a broader strategy to compel structural political change in Tehran.

Cruz’s comments come amid intensifying U.S.–Iran tensions, marked by Trump’s declaration that Tehran must reach a nuclear agreement within 10 to 15 days or face serious consequences. This deadline, widely reported by international news organizations, seeks meaningful concessions on enrichment and missile programs and has been accompanied by a substantial U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, raising the specter of possible military action if diplomacy falters. 

The Latin American operation cited by Cruz, Operation Absolute Resolve, involved U.S. special forces capturing Maduro in early 2026—a move that has been publicly acknowledged and widely discussed. Cruz used this precedent to suggest that Tehran could face a similar fate unless its clerical leadership relinquishes control. He further predicted that internal pressures—including economic distress, mass protests, and political fractures—could hasten a collapse of the Iranian regime in the coming months, although such an outcome remains speculative. 

While Cruz’s rhetoric underscores a hawkish faction in American foreign policy that favors maximizing pressure to induce regime change, it remains outside the official narrative from the White House or the Pentagon. U.S. officials continue to focus on enforcing nuclear limits, curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program, and deterring regional aggression through a combination of diplomacy and military readiness. Neither the U.S. administration nor allied governments have publicly adopted the specific demand that Iran’s Supreme Leader step down as a formal policy condition. 

Observers note that Cruz’s framing taps into broader frustrations over stalled negotiations and Iran’s rapid uranium enrichment, which critics argue shortens the timeline to weapons-grade material. However, experts also caution that calling for regime change—especially through force—carries risks of escalation, entanglement, and unintended regional consequences. The United States has historically weighed such options carefully, balancing pressure with strategic restraint to avoid protracted conflict.

In practical terms, the 10–15 day ultimatum reflects a diplomatic tactic designed to sharpen Tehran’s decision-making calculus rather than an explicit timetable for leadership removal. As the deadline approaches, the international community is watching whether Iran will offer substantive concessions to avert both military confrontation and deeper regional instability. Until then, assertions about forced leadership change remain assertions tied to individual political voices rather than official government policy.