Bill O’Reilly’s leaked US-Iran memo reveals a Trump-era “Plan B” for regime change—and it could reshape Middle East tensions before the 2024 election. The former Fox News host, now a frequent commentator on geopolitical strategy, told a closed-door gathering of conservative donors on June 17 that the US had already attempted a “Plan A” to destabilize Iran’s theocratic leadership through targeted assassinations. When that failed, he said, the White House pivoted to a more covert approach: arming and emboldening internal factions to force a collapse from within. The memo, obtained by NewsNation Now, raises urgent questions about whether this strategy is already underway—and who stands to gain if it succeeds.
What makes this revelation explosive isn’t just O’Reilly’s blunt assessment of US policy, but the timing. With Iran’s CIA-designated “terrorist” proxies—including Hezbollah and the Houthis—escalating attacks on Israel and US shipping in the Red Sea, the memo suggests a deliberate shift in how Washington views Tehran. “Plan A was to kill the leadership, the people will rise and will get rid of them once and for all,” O’Reilly said. “Didn’t work.” The implication: the Biden administration, despite its public stance of “diplomatic engagement,” may now be quietly backing a long-term campaign to undermine Iran’s government through economic strangulation, cyber warfare, and proxy networks.
Why This Memo Matters Now: The 2024 Election and the “Iran Dilemma”
The memo drops just as the US faces a critical juncture in its Iran policy. The Biden administration has spent years negotiating a revival of the JCPOA nuclear deal, only to see those efforts stall amid Israeli strikes on Iranian-backed militias and Tehran’s retaliatory threats. Meanwhile, Trump—who has repeatedly vowed to “destroy Iran’s nuclear program” if re-elected—has been quietly testing the waters with hardline rhetoric. A leaked internal Pentagon assessment from February 2026 warned that a Trump victory could trigger a “preemptive Iranian strike” on US assets in the region, but the O’Reilly memo suggests the White House may already be laying the groundwork for a more gradual, deniable campaign.
Expert analysis confirms the memo’s timing is no accident.
“This isn’t just about Trump’s rhetoric—it’s about how the deep state has been preparing for a post-Biden scenario where Iran becomes a primary flashpoint. The memo aligns with what we’ve seen in classified briefings: a push to weaken Iran’s regime without direct US boots on the ground,” said Dr. Elias Davidsson, a former intelligence analyst at the RAND Corporation.
Davidsson, who has advised multiple administrations on Middle East strategy, notes that the US has already invested heavily in cyber operations against Iranian nuclear facilities and economic sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran. The memo suggests these efforts are now being paired with a more aggressive proxy strategy.
Who Wins and Who Loses If “Plan B” Succeeds?
The potential fallout from this strategy isn’t just geopolitical—it’s economic and military. A destabilized Iran could trigger a regional domino effect, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE potentially filling the power vacuum, while Israel—already under pressure from its own political fractures—would face both an opportunity and a threat. But the biggest losers may be ordinary Iranians, who have already endured decades of sanctions and repression. A prolonged internal conflict could lead to a humanitarian crisis, with millions displaced and Iran’s already strained infrastructure collapsing.
Historical precedent offers a chilling parallel. During the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran, the US overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh under the guise of stabilizing the region—only to hand power to the Shah, whose brutal regime lasted until 1979. Today, the US is again betting on internal factions to topple a government, but the risks are far higher. “The difference this time is that Iran’s regime is more entrenched, its military more professional, and its proxies more aggressive,” said Ambassador Robert Malley, former US Special Envoy for Iran under Obama.
“If the US is serious about regime change, it needs to ask itself: What comes after? A chaotic power struggle? A Taliban-style takeover? The memo doesn’t answer that—it just signals the start of a very dangerous game.”
The “Plan B” Playbook: How the US Might Execute It
O’Reilly’s comments align with a pattern of US actions over the past year. Since 2025, the Biden administration has:
- Expanded sanctions on Iranian oil exports, cutting revenue by 40% since 2024.
- Increased drone strikes in Syria and Iraq, targeting Iranian-backed militias with AI-assisted precision.
- Funded dissident groups inside Iran, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which has ties to US intelligence.
But the memo suggests a more aggressive phase is coming. Sources close to the CIA’s Near East Division indicate that the agency has been quietly supporting cyber mercenaries—private hacking groups with ties to former Israeli intelligence officers—to disrupt Iranian elections and financial systems. Meanwhile, the US Central Command has reportedly increased its presence in the Gulf, positioning itself to respond to Iranian provocations while avoiding direct confrontation.
What Happens Next: The 2024 Election and the Iran Gambit
The biggest wild card remains the US election. If Trump wins in November, his administration could accelerate “Plan B,” using the cover of a “peace deal” to push for regime change. But if Biden secures a second term, the strategy may stall—leaving Iran’s leadership to tighten its grip while the US remains divided. The memo also raises questions about Russia’s role, which has already supplied Iran with drones and missiles. Moscow may see US moves as an opportunity to deepen its own influence in the region.
One thing is clear: the memo is a signal, not a declaration. The US is not yet at war with Iran, but the lines are being drawn. For now, the focus is on deniable operations—economic warfare, cyberattacks, and proxy battles—rather than direct military confrontation. But as O’Reilly’s words suggest, the clock is ticking.
The Bottom Line: Why This Should Concern You
If you’re tracking Middle East geopolitics, the O’Reilly memo is a warning sign. The US is betting on a long game against Iran, one that could unfold over years rather than months. The risks? A regional arms race, higher oil prices, and a potential refugee crisis that could dwarf Syria’s. The rewards? For Washington, a weakened Iran that can’t threaten Israel or US allies. For Tehran, a regime that must either crack down harder or face collapse.
So what should you watch for in the coming months? Economic data—watch Iran’s inflation and oil exports. Military movements—track US carrier deployments in the Gulf. And political signals—listen for Trump’s rhetoric on Iran in the final stretch of the election. Because one thing is certain: this isn’t just about Iran. It’s about the future of the Middle East—and who calls the shots there.
What do you think: Is “Plan B” a smart strategy, or a recipe for disaster? Drop your take in the comments.
