Questions are intensifying in Washington that go beyond the military dimension of the strikes targeting Tehran, reaching into the core of American decision making and its political and constitutional limits. Concerns are mounting over a potential slide that could replicate the trajectory of Iraq in 2003 under different banners.
In this context, Al Jazeera correspondent in Washington Anas Al Sabbār said that confirmation by a US official to Al Jazeera of American participation in joint strikes with Israel represents a significant shift. Washington, he noted, is no longer limiting itself to defensive support but has become directly involved in the attack itself.
Al Sabbār explained that in previous rounds of escalation, US administrations typically described their role as defensive, confined to protecting Israel and intercepting any Iranian responses through naval systems in the Mediterranean. The latest statement, however, confirms direct operational involvement.
He added that the nature of this participation still requires official clarification, both in terms of its scale and its duration, particularly in light of the US official’s remarks that the strikes aim to “dismantle the Iranian security apparatus” and would be wide ranging.
This development follows the announcement by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz of the start of what he described as a pre emptive attack on Tehran, coinciding with explosions in the Iranian capital and the closure of airspace in both Iran and Israel.
Iranian media reported hearing explosions in several areas of Tehran. Israeli authorities announced the activation of sirens, the closure of schools, and a ban on public gatherings, signalling expectations of a possible Iranian response.
Al Sabbār pointed out that American references to targeting the Iranian security apparatus reflect a shift from a deterrence approach to one that touches the very structure of the state’s security institutions. This raises questions as to whether the objective goes beyond containing a threat to weakening the regime itself.
Objectives of the Attack
The correspondent added that US President Donald Trump had on more than one occasion suggested that the fall of the Iranian regime would be “better,” even if he did not declare it a direct objective, at a time when previous negotiations had officially focused on the nuclear programme.
According to Al Sabbār, the widening scope of the strikes brings to mind the 2003 experience, particularly amid warnings from within the US administration against becoming entangled in a new war in the Middle East without clear and time bound objectives.
He noted that Vice President JD Vance had previously warned against a new military engagement resembling the Iraq war, calling for the avoidance of a war without a clear horizon. This places the administration under pressure to provide a convincing explanation to the public.
Al Sabbār also explained that communication between the White House and Congress has intensified in recent days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a meeting with congressional leaders in what is known as the “Gang of Eight” to discuss developments.
He reported that Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on the administration to brief Americans on its plans regarding Iran, stressing the need for clarity about objectives, duration, and potential costs.
He affirmed that constitutional custom in the United States requires the administration to inform Congress of any external military operation and to define its legal scope. This places the Trump administration before a parallel domestic political reckoning alongside the external confrontation.
Al Sabbār indicated that the scale of US military mobilisation in the region in recent weeks, including the deployment of advanced naval and air assets, was not symbolic but reflected preparation for potential escalation scenarios.
The Al Jazeera correspondent concluded that American public opinion does not appear enthusiastic about another war, given the costly legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan. The question therefore remains open: are the strikes a limited operation with defined objectives, or the beginning of an escalation that may exceed the calculations of the moment?
