Summary
President Donald Trump on Monday pushed back against criticism that his administration has not laid out a clear rationale for starting a war with Iran now or a specific endgame for how it expects the conflict to end. The pushback came as the fighting widened across the Middle East, with energy prices climbing and the death toll rising while U.S. officials suggested the operation could still be in an early phase.
Trump’s comments also reflected a brewing dispute inside his own political movement, where frustration over the administration’s explanation and time horizon was not confined to the political left. The contention comes as Trump’s team argued that it would take time for the operation to meet its objectives and as U.S. officials faced questions about whether the administration could be pulled into a prolonged regional conflict.
Trump appeared to leave room for a larger U.S. military role, telling the New York Post that he was not ruling out the possibility of “boots on the ground.” In remarks carried by the paper, he said: “I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground — like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” and added: “I say ‘probably don’t need them,’ (or) ‘if they were necessary.’”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking to reporters, tried to limit the administration’s signals about what it would do next, telling reporters that the U.S. would not get into the “foolish” exercise of telegraphing “what we will or will not do.” The exchange underscored how the administration is responding to mounting scrutiny over its strategy as Iran retaliates with drone and missile attacks against Israel, U.S. bases in the region, and Persian Gulf neighbors.
On the ground, Israel and Hezbollah traded strikes on Monday, opening what U.S. officials described as another front in the broader conflict. At the same time, Trump argued that criticism of the plan was out of step with the MAGA movement, saying in an interview with journalist Rachael Bade that “MAGA wants to see our country thrive and be safe” and that “MAGA loves what I’m doing — every aspect of it.” He said Iran “is a detour that we have to take in order to keep our country safe and keep other countries safe, frankly.”
Some prominent Trump allies raised concerns anyway. Erik Prince, described as a longtime Trump ally and private security contractor, said on Sunday on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast that he was “not happy about the whole thing” and that “It’s gonna uncork a significant can of worms and chaos, and destruction in Iran now.” Prince added, “I don’t see how this is in keeping with the president’s MAGA commitment. I am disappointed.” Other right-leaning figures cited in the report as questioning the decision included YouTube host Benny Johnson, influencer Andrew Tate and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.
Trump also offered his own framing of the operation’s progress and time frame. Speaking at a White House event on Monday, Trump said the joint U.S. and Israel military operation was “substantially ahead of schedule” and estimated it would take four to five weeks to meet the administration’s objectives, while adding it could take longer. Hegseth provided a more open-ended range when asked about duration, saying, “President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take. Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks,” and that “It could move up. It could move back.”
The report also said the U.S. military expects to endure additional casualties. Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine told reporters that expectation as of Monday, when the report said six U.S. service members had been killed in action and others badly injured during Iran’s retaliatory strikes across the region.
A central issue for critics has been what the United States is seeking to change in Iran. The report said the administration has not detailed who it wants to take control of Iran following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other top leaders in the opening salvos. While Trump, when announcing the start of major combat operations, called on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to put down their arms, the administration has not described whether it intends to pursue “regime change,” or a different outcome, after the bombing campaign.
Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft said Trump may ultimately be willing to accept what she described as a “regime collapse” or “regime implosion” rather than regime change. “That is very different (than regime change), not only because potentially it could be achieved, but it’s also something that enables the Trump administration to wash their hands of the consequences of this,” Parsi said. Israel, meanwhile, is described as pressing for a sustained operation that could deliver a decisive blow to Iran’s clerical rule, with Daniel Shapiro—previously U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration—saying he thought the Israeli concern was that Trump might “declare victory” earlier than they want.
Questions also persist about Trump’s stated rationale for launching the war. The report said administration officials told congressional staff in private briefings Sunday that U.S. intelligence did not indicate Iran was preparing to launch a pre-emptive strike against the U.S., and that the officials instead acknowledged a broader threat in the region from Iran’s missiles and proxy forces. Trump, however, repeated Monday assertions that the U.S. needed to act because of concerns that Iran was building ballistic missiles that could reach the United States.
The report said Iran has not acknowledged it is building intercontinental ballistic missiles, while the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said in an unclassified report last year that Iran could develop a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.” The report also said Trump repeated his claim that Iran was trying to rebuild its nuclear program even after U.S. strikes last June that he said “obliterated” three key nuclear facilities, even as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, reaffirmed Monday that Iran has an “ambitious” nuclear program but does not have a current program for building nuclear weapons and that Iran has refused to let IAEA inspectors visit its damaged sites.
Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association said “regime change is not a viable nonproliferation strategy.” “Iran’s nuclear program cannot be bombed away. Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away,” Davenport said, adding that even if regime change occurred, Iran’s program would still pose a proliferation risk.
AP journalists Seung Min Kim, Nathan Ellgren, and Didi Tang contributed reporting.