What the Trump administration says about why it went to war with Iran : NPR

Stay up to date with our Politics newsletter, sent weekly.

The Trump administration says its strikes against Iran are “laser focused” and mission-driven, but messages from President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been mixed. The wide range of motivations they have cited for attacking Iran are now sometimes at odds with each other and far from accurate.

Here’s a look at what the administration is saying about why it launched attacks on Iran and where the conflict is headed from here:

“The United States of America will come to their rescue”

“If Iran[o]ts and violently kills peaceful protesters, as is their custom, The United States of America will come to your rescue. “We’re locked, loaded and ready to go.” President Trump on January 2 Social Truth Posting

In early January, Trump threatened military action if Iran continued killing demonstrators during historic anti-regime protests. A couple of weeks later, Trump stood up, enthusiastically followed the protesters to “keep protesting,” and added, “Help is on the way.”

But the regime continued to kill protesters en masse, which many international observers saw as a crossing of Trump’s red line and additional pressure for him to attack.

Days after launching the initial attacks on February 28, Trump again pointed to the number of protesters killed as justification for going to war. But when pressed to clarify looming threats to take action, the White House did not mention protesters among the main reasons for the strike when it did so.

““Something had to be done”

“something had to be doneand 47 years have passed. They have been killing people all over the world for a long time. They were the kings and fathers of roadside bombs.” President Trump during a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on March 3.

Announcing the start of the attacks, Trump vowed that the Iranian network of proxy groups fighting across the region must be stopped. Iran has long supported the informal group of armed forces known as the Axis of Resistance. Iran has provided military and financial support to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Hezbollah has already counterattacked, attacking Israeli forces. That led Israel to send troops across the border while bombing the Lebanese capital.

Hezbollah and Hamas have been weakened over the past year due to fighting with Israel, but the attacks and the assassination of Iran’s supreme leader have the potential to inspire more activity by the groups.

“You would have had a nuclear war,” or would we?

“If we don’t stop them or if we don’t stop them or if we don’t start, they have been decimated, but if we don’t do what we’re doing now, you would have had a nuclear war and they would have eliminated many countries.” – President Trump during a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on March 3.

Trump has claimed that US strikes in June on three of Iran’s key nuclear sites, including one called Fordo, built deep in a mountain, left them “completely and totally destroyed.”

Days later in June, a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly said intelligence assessments showed the strikes set back Iran’s nuclear enrichment program by only “a few months.”

On Wednesday, Trump again said that the program had been destroyed, but immediately followed up by saying that Iran would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks if the United States had not attacked.

“Missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America”

“The regime already had missiles capable of reaching Europe and our bases, both at home and abroad, and would have had them soon. Missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America..”— President Trump defending the March 2 US military operation before presenting the Medal of Honor to three soldiers

One of the most consistent reasons the White House has given for launching attacks is that Iran was threatening U.S. forces and allies in the region with its growing ballistic missile program. But Trump went a step further, saying Tehran could “soon” hit targets in the United States with ballistic missiles.

But that claim is not supported by any public US intelligence reports. The Defense Intelligence Agency reported last spring that Iran would not be able to develop a long-range missile by 2035.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also accused Tehran of working to further strengthen its nuclear capabilities against attack. He said Iran was building missiles and drones to create a “conventional shield” for its nuclear weapons ambitions.

“We knew there was going to be an Israeli action”

“The president made a very wise decision. We knew there was going to be Israeli action.. “We knew that would precipitate an attack on American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively pursue them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer greater casualties.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks to reporters at the Capitol on March 2.

Those comments sparked widespread criticism, including from right-wing supporters, that Trump was allowing Israel to draw him into war.

The White House quickly sought to recover the narrative. A day later, Trump rejected that characterization and argued that the United States forced Israel.

But on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that a phone call between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before they launched the war may have influenced the timing of the attack, but that before that phone call, Trump “had a good feeling that the Iranian regime was going to attack US assets and our personnel in the region.”

“UNCONDITIONAL PERFORMANCE!”

“There will be no agreement with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT AND ACCEPTABLE Leader, we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better and stronger than ever before.” President Trump on March 6. Social Truth Posting

“This is not a so-called war of regime change, but the regime did change and the world is better for it.” — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at a press conference at the Pentagon on March 2.

Trump says fighting will continue until American objectives are met, but he and his aides have given confusing explanations about the future of the Iranian leadership.

In announcing the strikes, Trump said the US military would destroy Iran’s ballistic missile program, prevent the regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon and stop supporting military proxy networks.

But he also made it clear that regime change is being sought when he called on the Iranian people to “be bold, heroic and take back your country.”

But Hegseth and the administration have since distanced themselves from those comments. Hegseth told reporters: “This is not a so-called war of regime change, but the regime did change and the world is better off for it.” And Leavitt, the press secretary, on Wednesday did not mention regime change as one of Trump’s goals for ending the war.

“We thought we had a deal”

“We thought we had a dealbut then they backed out and then they came back and we thought we had a deal and they backed out. I said, ‘You can’t deal with these people.’ You have to do it the right way.'” President Trump defending the March 2 US military operation before presenting the Medal of Honor to three soldiers

Two Fridays ago, Trump expressed frustration over nuclear negotiations with Tehran, but also indicated that he was willing to give the negotiations more time. Hours later, the United States launched airstrikes against Iran.

Senior administration officials have repeatedly said that negotiations with Iran were not moving forward and that Iran appeared to be moving slowly through the process while continuing to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, who had been helping mediate the talks, said negotiations were ongoing and moving forward. Writing on social media, he said he was shocked by the attacks and accused the United States of undermining serious negotiations.