It remains increasingly difficult to interpret President Trump, or to take his words at face value, especially when it comes to back-and-forth with reporters on the Iran war and future aims and plans.

For example, on Monday, the president was asked at a news briefing in Florida whether Iran's new leader was a target, to which Trump replied: "The new leader, you mean the son?… I was disappointed to see their choice," before adding, "I don’t want to say whether he has (a target on his back)." 

When later pressed in a follow-up question, he reiterated his broader frustration and then conceded that the Iranian people are "an amazing people but the system they have only leads to failure." This slightly softened or tempered rhetoric in terms of war aims is a far cry from the "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" demand of merely a few days ago.

Already, the White House seems to have completely backed off listing "regime change" as an official objective of Operation Epic Fury, perhaps belatedly realizing the severe limitations of a purely aerial campaign. On Tuesday, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff is in front of cameras saying Trump is always willing to talk, even to the Iranians, however "the question is whether or not it is worth it."

As for the potential for another regime 'decapitation strike' - it's ironic (and a tad confusing) that on the very day Trump refrained from saying he would take out the new Ayatollah, The Wall Street Journal issued a headline and quotes suggesting the opposite: Trump Open to Khamenei Being Killed if He Doesn’t Cede to U.S. Demands. It said:

President Trump has told aides he would back the killing of new Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei if he proves unwilling to cede to U.S. demands, such as ending Iran’s nuclear development, current and former U.S. officials said.

The White House declined to comment, but Trump on Monday told the New York Post he was “not happy” that Khamenei was selected to lead Iran after previously calling him “unacceptable.” Trump last week on social media said he wanted a say in picking a “great and acceptable” ruler for Iran following its “unconditional surrender.”

“I’m not going through this to end up with another Khamenei,” Trump told Time magazine last week.

But the same report reveals a consensus among Israeli officials that Israel would like precisely to go ahead and take out the younger Khamenei too - and perhaps even any replacement after that.

"The younger Khamenei is viewed in Washington as a hard-line successor to his father who was hand-picked by Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the current and former U.S. officials said," WSJ said. "The officials said they don't expect Khamenei is likely to give up Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons or negotiate an end to the conflict on terms favorable to the U.S."

This obviously sets up for an escalation trap dilemma: pursue full regime change which would likely require boots on the ground to dismantle and secure Iran's nuclear program (while risking 'endless' quagmire)?

Or keep the regime/system in place, which avoids a ground quagmire, but then risks a future nuclear-armed Islamic Republic. The more days and weeks which pass in the conflict, the more acute this dilemma will become.