In the span of a single speech to House Republicans on Monday, Donald Trump called the Iran war a “short-term excursion” that could end soon, then declared “we haven’t won enough.” The next day, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters it was up to the president to decide “whether it’s the beginning, the middle or the end.” By Wednesday, Trump was back at the microphone: “We have hit them harder than virtually any country in history has been hit, and we’re not finished yet.” Thirteen days into Operation Epic Fury, the most consistent feature of America’s war on Iran is the inconsistency of the people running it.
The confusion is not just rhetorical. Across the board, the Trump administration has not clearly articulated an endgame or an off-ramp, according to four sources from allied countries. “We have no idea what they actually want to accomplish when this war is over. It doesn’t seem like Trump even knows,” said one European diplomat. Senator Chris Murphy emerged from Tuesday’s two-hour classified briefing and said: “It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent.” He added: “If the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorisation for this war, he wouldn’t get it.”
A President at War With His Own Narrative
The administration’s stated objectives have shifted daily. On February 28, Trump told the nation he was acting to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. His formal letter to Congress justified strikes to protect US forces, ensure free maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, and act in collective self-defense of regional allies including Israel. The letter mentioned nothing of regime change. By that same afternoon, Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered yet another rationale: the United States struck preemptively because Israel was about to attack, and inaction would have meant higher US casualties.
Since then, Trump has cycled through at least five different justifications — from nuclear prevention to “unconditional surrender” to his claim that he had a “feeling” Iran was about to attack the US. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt amended that position, telling reporters the president’s “feeling” was “based on fact.” But Pentagon officials in private briefings have told congressional staffers that the US does not have intelligence indicating Iran was planning to preemptively attack the US.
“The military instrument has been authorised far beyond what the strategic objective can deliver,” said Muhanad Seloom, an analyst at Al Jazeera’s studies center. “The US can destroy Iran’s hardware, but it cannot manufacture a political alternative from the air.”
The Polls That Don’t Rally
What makes the political ground especially treacherous for the White House is the absence of the “rally around the flag” effect that has accompanied every major American military operation since the Gulf War. Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies called this “a lower level of support than in most of the major military action that we’ve seen.”
The numbers are stark across every major survey. Fifty-three percent of voters oppose the military action, while 40 percent support it, according to Quinnipiac. CNN found 59% of Americans disapprove of the initial decision to strike Iran. The NPR/PBS/Marist poll found just 36% approve of Trump’s handling of the war, while 55% see Iran as only a minor threat or no threat at all. Quinnipiac’s Tim Malloy summarized: “Voters are unenthusiastic about the air attack on Iran and there is overwhelming opposition to putting American troops on Iranian soil to fight a ground war.”
A majority of voters — 55 percent — do not think Iran posed an imminent military threat to the United States before the current action. Most say they lack trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran, with 60% saying they do not think he has a clear plan. Just over a quarter feel that the US made enough of an effort at diplomacy before using military force.
The partisan divide is deep but not monolithic. Among Republicans, 55 percent approved of the strikes in the early Reuters/Ipsos poll — and about 42 percent said they would be less likely to support the operation if it led to US troops being killed or injured. Independents — the critical midterm swing group that Trump won in 2024 — have been aligning with Democrats on nearly every issue, including this war. Sixty-one percent of independents are against US involvement in Iran.
The Clausewitz Problem
The history of American military intervention offers a consistent lesson: wars begun without clear political objectives rarely end well. When political goals are undefined or contested, the war lacks a logical stopping point. Tactical successes raise questions of what comes next, while tactical setbacks become justification for doing more. As Clausewitz famously argued, war is politics by other means — but without a clear political purpose, war becomes an end in itself.
Before the war, General Dan Caine reportedly voiced significant concerns that a prolonged, high-intensity conflict could deplete critical US munitions, sapping readiness to respond to threats elsewhere. The early days have validated those concerns, with the US burning through significant stockpiles of long-range strike munitions and limited, high-end air defense interceptors.
Senator Elizabeth Warren drew the sharpest line: “At this point, I am a hard no on a supplemental. No more money. The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse. This is not a war supported by this country, and this is not a war that makes us safer.”
The war is now on an unpredictable path with a credible endgame nowhere in sight. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has vowed not to allow “a single liter of oil” through the Strait of Hormuz until the bombing stops. The administration has rejected Iranian overtures to begin talks. Trump himself dismissed the polling: “I don’t care about polling. I have to do the right thing.” Whether Americans agree that bombing a country that wasn’t attacking them is the right thing may be the question that defines the 2026 midterms — and the presidency itself.
Original analysis inspired by Aamer Madhani / AP from The Times of Israel. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
Tags:
Categories: Iran | USA | War, Defense & Security | Politics & Governments | Middle East
