Senator Ted Cruz has intensified calls for a more assertive U.S. posture toward Iran, arguing that the removal of the ruling clerical regime would significantly enhance American national security and weaken what he describes as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. In recent remarks, Cruz pointed to Tehran’s long record of backing militant organizations across the Middle East and its role in attacks that have killed hundreds of American service members, framing the current wave of student-led protests inside Iran as a strategic opportunity for change.

Cruz urged the administration to adopt a two-track approach: provide material support to anti-regime demonstrators and prepare for limited, targeted military strikes against key Iranian assets. He emphasized that such actions would not involve a large-scale ground invasion, drawing a clear distinction between precision operations and prolonged deployments of U.S. troops. According to Cruz, empowering Iranian citizens to challenge their government internally, while applying external pressure through calibrated military measures, could accelerate the collapse of the ruling structure without entangling the United States in another extended conflict.

The senator’s comments come as unrest has spread across Iranian university campuses and urban centers since mid-February, with dozens of demonstrations reported and security forces responding with force. Protesters have openly called for the removal of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, signaling one of the most direct challenges to the regime’s authority in recent years. Analysts monitoring the situation note that student movements have historically served as catalysts for broader political mobilization in Iran, though they also face rapid and often violent suppression by state security organs.

Cruz’s proposal reflects a longstanding debate in Washington over how best to counter Iran’s regional influence and internal governance. Supporters of a harder line argue that Tehran’s network of proxy groups, ballistic missile development, and nuclear ambitions necessitate a strategy that combines economic, political, and military pressure. They contend that visible support for popular dissent could undermine the regime’s legitimacy while signaling solidarity with Iranian citizens seeking political reform.

Critics, however, warn that direct U.S. involvement in arming domestic opposition movements carries significant risks, including escalation, regional destabilization, and the potential for unintended consequences inside Iran. The question of limited strikes also raises concerns about retaliation through proxy forces operating in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond. These dynamics underscore the complexity of translating rhetorical support for regime change into actionable policy without triggering a broader conflict.

Cruz’s remarks nonetheless highlight the growing convergence between internal unrest in Iran and external pressure from Washington and its allies. As protests continue and policymakers assess options ranging from diplomatic engagement to coercive measures, the trajectory of U.S.-Iran relations appears increasingly tied to developments within Iran’s own streets and campuses.

Whether the current demonstrations evolve into a sustained nationwide movement remains uncertain, but the combination of domestic dissent, international scrutiny, and intensified policy debate in the United States suggests a period of heightened volatility. In this environment, calls for limited strikes and support for opposition forces represent one of several competing approaches under consideration as Washington evaluates how to respond to both the Iranian regime’s actions and the aspirations of its people.