WASHINGTON: The Trump administration and its allies in Congress presented a shifting new justification Monday for the US attack on Iran, with House Speaker Mike Johnson suggesting that the White House believed Israel was determined to act on its own, leaving the president with a “very difficult decision.”
The Republican was speaking late Monday after a classified briefing at the Capitol, the first for congressional leaders since the start of the war, a joint US-Israel military campaign that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and has quickly spiraled into a widening Middle East conflict. Hundreds have died, including at least six US military service personnel.
Johnson said the attack on Iran was a “defensive operation” because Israel was ready to act against Iran, “with or without American support.” He said President Donald Trump and his team determined that Iran would immediately retaliate against US personnel and assets.
“The commander in chief has said this is going to be an operation that is short in duration,” Johnson said. “We certainly hope that’s true.”
The remarkable shift in the Trump administration’s stated rationale comes as the hostilities deepen and widen across the region. The president himself estimated the war could drag on for weeks. The administration plans to seek supplemental funds from Congress to support the military effort, lawmakers said, in stark contrast to the president’s America First campaign not to entangle the US in actions abroad.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the “hardest hits are yet to come” as the US is determined to continue attacking Iran for as long as it takes with an “even more punishing” next phase in the war.
Rubio described what was essentially a potentially ripple effect that he said posed an “imminent threat” to the US
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” he said. “And we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
Rubio said that while the US would like to see the Iranian people rise up and be rid of the regime, “that’s not the objective,” he said. “The objective of this mission is to make sure they don’t have these weapons that can threaten us and our allies in the region.”
Trump’s shifting rationale sparks detractors
Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other administration officials delivered the classified briefing as Congress weighs a war powers resolution that would restrain Trump’s ability to keep waging war without approval from the House and Senate.
Trump himself, speaking at the White House, laid out four objectives for the war, saying US forces are out to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, wipe out its naval capacity, stop the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensure “that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
“This was our last, best chance to strike — what we’re doing right now — and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime,” Trump said.
Trump met repeatedly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they sought to curb Iran’s nuclear program, including last month at the White House.
Hegseth earlier Monday vowed this is not an “endless war,” even as he warned more US casualties are likely in the weeks ahead.
But Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said: “There was no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel.”
Warner said he has now heard four or five stated reasons for the attack. He demanded that Trump “come before Congress, and for that matter, the American people,” to make his case for war — and the exit plan.
Several Democrats delivered blistering speeches against the war. “Are we now such an enfeebled nation that Israel decides when we go to war?” said Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, voice rising.
War powers as a check on presidential power
The moment is a defining one for Congress, which alone has the authority under the US Constitution to declare war, and for the Republican president, who has consistently seized power during his second term with his own executive reach.
Trump took the nation to war at a particularly vulnerable time, as the Department of Homeland Security is operating without routine funds because of a standoff with Democrats over their demands to restrain his immigration enforcement operations. The potential wartime costs in terms of lives lost and dollars spent are dividing the parties, and potentially Americans themselves.
Unlike the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, which included long debates in Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or the more recent US military strikes on Venezuela that proved to be limited, the joint US-Israel military attack on Iran, called Operation Epic Fury, is well underway, with no foreseeable end in sight.
“It’s worrisome,” Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told The Associated Press.
Smith said of Trump: “He is not trying to making his case to the Congress or the American people. He unilaterally decided to do this.”
In fact, Congress has declared war just five times in the nation’s history, most recently in 1941, to enter World War II a day after the Pearl Harbor attack. Over time, presidents of both major political parties have accumulated vast authority to engage in what are often more limited US military strikes.
Johnson said tying Trump’s hands right now would be “frightening” as he works to defeat the war powers resolution.
Even if Congress is able to pass the measure this week, the House and the Senate would be unlikely to tally the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto.
Next steps for Iranian people uncertain
As the Trump administration encourages the Iranian people to rise up and choose new leaders, there did not appear to be widespread US support for any effort at democracy- or nation-building.
“We would love to see this regime be replaced,” Rubio said. “If there’s something we can do to help them down the road, we’d obviously be open to it. But that’s not the objective.”
A top Trump ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he never bought into the you-break-it-you-own-it concept in wartime.
“If there’s a threat to America, deal with it,” he said over the weekend. “That doesn’t mean you own everything that follows.”
Trump officials say Israel’s plans helped lead the US into Iran war
https://arab.news/2q2q2
Trump officials say Israel’s plans helped lead the US into Iran war
- The US is determined to continue attacking Iran for as long as it takes with an “even more punishing” next phase in the war
With Iran war exit elusive, Trump aides vie to affect outcome
- Aides debate when and how to declare victory even as the conflict spreads across the Middle East
- In taking America to war, US President Donald Trump offered little explanation
WASHINGTON: A complex tug-of-war inside the White House is driving US President Donald Trump’s shifting public statements on the course of the Iran war, as aides debate when and how to declare victory even as the conflict spreads across the Middle East.
Some officials and advisers are warning Trump that surging gasoline prices could exact a political cost from the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, while some hawks are pressing the president to maintain the offensive against the Islamic Republic, according to interviews with a Trump adviser and others close to the deliberations.
Their observations to Reuters offer a previously unreported glimpse inside White House decision-making as it adjusts its approach to the biggest US military operation since the 2003 Iraq war.
Shifting messages, various internal viewpoints
The behind-the-scenes maneuvering underscores the high stakes Trump, who returned to office last year promising to avoid “stupid” military interventions, faces nearly two weeks after plunging the nation into a war that has rattled global financial markets and disrupted the international oil trade.
The jockeying for Trump’s ear is a feature of his presidency, but this time the consequences are a matter of war and peace in one of the world’s most volatile and economically critical regions.
Shifting from the sweeping goals he framed in launching the war on February 28, Trump in recent days has emphasized that he views the conflict as a limited campaign whose objectives have mostly been met.
But the message remains unclear to many, including the energy markets, which have lurched in both directions in response to Trump’s statements.
He told a campaign-style rally in Kentucky on Wednesday that “we won” the war, then abruptly pivoted: “We don’t want to leave early, do we? We’ve got to finish the job.”
Economic advisers and officials, including from the Treasury Department and the National Economic Council, have warned Trump that an oil shock and rising gasoline prices could quickly erode domestic support for the war, said the adviser and two others close to the deliberations, speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions.
Political advisers, including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and deputy chief James Blair, are making similar arguments, focusing on the political fallout from higher gas prices and urging Trump to define victory narrowly and signal the operation is limited and nearly finished, the sources said.
Pushing in the other direction are hawkish voices urging Trump to sustain military pressure on Iran, including Republican lawmakers such as US Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, and media commentators such as Mark Levin, according to people familiar with the matter.
They argue the US must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and respond forcefully to attacks on American troops and shipping.
A third force comes from Trump’s populist base and figures such as strategist Steve Bannon and right-wing television personality Tucker Carlson, who have been pressing him and his top aides to avoid getting dragged into another prolonged Middle East conflict.
“He is allowing the hawks to believe the campaign continues, wants markets to believe the war might end soon and his base to believe escalation will be limited,” the Trump adviser said.
Asked for comment, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: “This story is based on gossip and speculation from anonymous sources who aren’t even in the room for any discussions with President Trump.
“The President is known for being a good listener and seeking the opinions of many people, but ultimately everyone knows he’s the final decision maker and his own best messenger,” she said. “The President’s entire team is focused on ensuring the objectives of Operation Epic Fury are fully achieved.”
Other people named for their roles in the deliberations did not immediately respond to Reuters’ questions.
Looking for an exit
In taking America to war, Trump offered little explanation, and the administration’s stated war aims have ranged from thwarting an imminent attack by Iran to crippling its nuclear program to replacing its government.
As he seeks an exit from an unpopular conflict, Trump is trying to juggle competing narratives that some critics say have complicated an already difficult situation, with Iran defiant despite the devastating US-Israeli air assault.
Top political aides and economic advisers, whose warnings before the war of the potential economic shock were largely ignored, appear to have played a major role in pushing Trump’s efforts this week to reassure skittish markets and contain rising oil and gas prices.
His public shift to downplaying the war’s impact, describing it as a “short-term excursion,” and his insistence that gas price hikes would be short-lived appeared aimed at calming fears of an open-ended conflict.
Some top aides have advised him to work toward a conclusion to the conflict that he can call a triumph, at least militarily, the sources said, even if much of the Iranian leadership survives, along with remnants of a nuclear program that the campaign was meant to target.
Wave after wave of US and Israeli air strikes have killed a number of top Iranian leaders among some 2,000 people overall – some as far away as Lebanon – devastated its ballistic missile arsenal, sunk much of its navy and degraded its ability to support armed proxies around the Middle East.
But the military achievements have been seriously undercut by Iran’s stepped-up attacks on oil tankers and transport facilities in the Gulf, driving up oil prices.
Trump has said he will decide when to end the campaign. He and his aides say they are far ahead of the four- to six-week timeframe Trump initially announced.
The shifting reasons for launching the conflict, which has spilled over into more than half a dozen other countries, have only made it more difficult to predict what comes next.
For their part, Iran’s rulers will claim victory, analysts say, for simply surviving the US-Israeli onslaught, especially after demonstrating their ability to fight back and inflict damage on Israel, the US and its allies.
Venezuela miscalculation
Critical to the war’s final trajectory will be the Strait of Hormuz. A fifth of the world’s oil shipments, which normally traverses the narrow waterway, has come to a near-standstill. Iran in recent days has struck tankers in Iraqi waters and other ships near the strait, and the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has vowed to keep it shut.
If Iran’s stranglehold on the waterway pushes US gas prices high enough, that could increase political pressure on Trump to end the military campaign to help his Republican Party, which is defending narrow majorities in Congress in November’s midterm elections.
Trump has recently refrained from pushing the idea that the war seeks to topple the government in Tehran. US intelligence indicates that Iran’s leadership is not at risk of collapse anytime soon, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
At least some of the confusion over the war’s trajectory appears rooted in the quick US military success in Venezuela.
Since the start of the war, some aides have struggled to convince Trump that the Iran campaign was unlikely to unfold in the same way as the January 3 Venezuela raid that captured President Nicolas Maduro, according to another source familiar with the administration’s thinking.
That operation opened the way for Trump to coerce former Maduro loyalists into giving him considerable sway over the country’s vast oil reserves – without requiring extended US military action.
Iran, by contrast, has proved a much tougher, better-armed foe with an entrenched clerical and security establishment.
Experts have rejected claims by Trump aides that Iran had been within weeks of being able to produce a nuclear weapon, despite the president’s insistence in June that US-Israeli bombing had “obliterated” its nuclear program.
Most of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is believed to have been buried by the June strikes, meaning the material potentially could be retrieved and purified to bomb grade. Iran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons.
If the war drags on, American casualties mount and the economic costs multiply, some analysts say it could erode backing from Trump’s political base. But despite criticism from some supporters opposed to military interventions, members of his “Make America Great Again” movement have so far largely stayed with him on Iran.
“The MAGA base is going to give the president wiggle room,” said Republican strategist Ford O’Connell.
