The wide disparity in the justifications presented by the administration of United States President Donald Trump for the war on Iran has raised serious questions about the clarity of the military operation’s objectives and whether it can achieve a defined victory. The explanations offered have ranged from regime change to ending Iran’s nuclear programme and ensuring regional security, yet many of these justifications appear contradictory or based on uncertain assumptions.
In an article published by The New Yorker, journalist Susan Glasser wrote that the publicly stated explanations for the American war on Iran have been both unclear and contradictory, even as multiple objectives have been presented. These range from regime change to ending Iran’s nuclear programme, which Trump himself previously claimed had already been eliminated.
Glasser explained that within just two and a half days of the war’s beginning, Trump and his administration presented a wide array of differing justifications. These included calls for regime change, support for what were described as “oppressed people” in Iran, stripping Tehran of its ability to project influence beyond its borders, halting attacks attributed to Iran, responding to previous attacks, taking pre emptive action against imminent threats to American forces, preventing the development of ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States mainland, and stopping the nuclear programme which Trump had declared the previous week had already been dismantled.
She noted that many of these arguments rely on assumptions that may be inaccurate, while others appear to have already been quietly abandoned.
Glasser argued that these contradictions raise a central question regarding what she described as the most dramatic American military operation since the 2003 invasion of Iraq: can the United States win a war it chose to begin while struggling to explain why it started or what victory would mean?
Conflicting Messages From the Administration
According to the article, Trump himself has been responsible for much of the confusion. In an eight minute video message, he warned of “imminent threats” and repeated longstanding accusations about what he described as Iran’s terrorist campaign. He also called on Iranians to overthrow what he labelled an “evil extremist dictatorship”, declaring that “the hour of your freedom has come”.
However, in later interviews Trump offered a different vision of victory. He referred to what he described as the “ideal scenario”, comparing it to his policy in Venezuela, where after the removal of Nicolás Maduro he abandoned support for the democratic opposition and instead backed Maduro’s deputy to govern the country.
The article noted that Trump appeared to dismiss the idea of Iranians choosing their own leadership, suggesting that he himself would determine who would govern the country.
United States Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated during the first Pentagon press conference following the attacks that the objective of the operation, called “Epic Rage”, was to “destroy” Iran’s navy, missile forces and nuclear ambitions. He emphasised that “this is not a regime change war”, though he added that “the regime has already changed”, referring to the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the first wave of strikes, even though the government itself remains in place.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also stated that the core objective of the operation is the destruction of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, while describing regime change as a “hope” rather than a formal objective.
Questions Over the War’s Direction
Glasser wrote that during Trump’s first public appearance after the start of the campaign, he did not mention regime change or the Iranian protesters he had previously urged to rise up.
He also did not address the broader consequences of the war, including rising oil prices, the possibility of retaliatory attacks within the United States, or the widening of the conflict following Iranian strikes on Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
According to the article, Trump did not provide evidence that Iran represents what he described as an “intolerable threat” beyond his own assertions. Nor did he explain why the war was launched without authorisation from Congress or without a broader effort to gain public support, despite opinion polls indicating that the American public does not support the decision.
Glasser noted that Trump has pledged to focus on defeating Iran “for as long as it takes”, even if the war continues “much longer” than four or five weeks.
She quoted Trump as saying: “I do not get bored. There is nothing boring about this.” He then shifted to discussing plans for a new ballroom at the White House.
According to the article, this sudden shift from discussing war to interior design illustrates a striking contradiction at a time when six American soldiers have already been killed and Trump has acknowledged that further casualties are possible.
The article also cited Robert Satloff, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who said that presenting a “list of potential objectives” allows Trump to declare victory regardless of the outcome, because whatever happens can later be described as the intended goal.
Glasser also noted that during his first presidency Trump stepped back from a broad military confrontation with Iran, choosing the cautious advice of advisers such as Jim Mattis over the more aggressive positions of figures like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. At that time, his willingness to take risks appeared lower.
She argued that Trump’s current team is different, consisting largely of officials selected for their willingness to support his decisions. This shift has occurred in a regional context that has changed significantly since the 7 October 2023 attack and the subsequent Israeli war on Hamas, which weakened much of Iran’s regional network and targeted facilities linked to its nuclear programme.
According to the article, the most logical explanation for the war may be that it seeks to exploit Iran’s current weakness rather than respond to its strength.
Glasser suggested that Trump, who has sought to secure a lasting historical legacy, may have viewed the collapse of a government that has confronted successive American presidents since 1979 as a unique opportunity. His political style has often emphasised the display of military power, and during his first year after returning to office he ordered strikes on seven countries, more than any recent president.
She concluded that when Trump insisted last year on renaming the Department of Defence as the Department of War, despite lacking the legal authority to do so, the move appeared at the time to be an unusual gesture for a self described “peace president”. In her view, it ultimately foreshadowed a path that has now led to a real war.
This platform runs on funding from the Ummah.
