The Trump administration’s first public defense of its joint military assault on Iran has ignited widespread criticism from legal experts, journalists, lawmakers, and voters, who are questioning both the justification for the strikes and the constitutional authority behind them.
In remarks to reporters following the weekend bombing campaign, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth blamed Iran for a conflict that has killed at least 555 people there and at least four U.S. service members in retaliation, with more casualties expected according to a spokesperson for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hegseth described the operation, which began early Saturday morning and included deadly attacks on children attending school, as “retribution” for Iran’s “savage, one-sided war against America” that has played out for “47 long years.”
“We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump we’re finishing it,” said Hegseth.
He asserted that Iran had a “conventional gun to our head” and claimed the country was “not negotiating” and “stalling” in diplomatic talks in order to rebuild missile stockpiles. President Donald Trump, announcing the strikes, said they were necessary to stop “imminent threats from the Iranian regime” against “the American people.”
Those claims have been sharply disputed. Hours before Trump announced the attacks, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi reported that diplomatic talks he was mediating were making significant progress toward a peace deal. Pentagon officials also told Congress on Sunday that Iran had not been planning to strike any U.S. military targets in the region unless it was attacked first, according to CNN.
Journalist Jeremy Scahill of Drop Site News summarized Hegseth’s position bluntly: “To be clear,” he said, “he is claiming the US went to war because Iran has ballistic missiles and drones it has used as a deterrent or to respond to US/Israeli attacks.”
Drop Site further noted that Hegseth made no mention of “the 1953 US-backed coup in Iran,” U.S. support for autocratic rule there from 1953-79, “or that the US and Israel launched the February 28 strikes.”
On the UK talk radio show “Leading Britain’s Conversation,” British journalist Jon Sopel compared the administration’s reasoning to past wars. He said Hegseth was making “the exact argument that [former President] George W. Bush made in 2003 with the weapons of mass destruction and ‘They could be launched in 45 minutes.’” Sopel added that promises to end the U.S. government’s tendency toward regime change wars were part of “what propelled Donald Trump to the presidency, and yet Donald Trump and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu have launched these strikes against Iran.”
The operation, dubbed Operation Epic Fury by the U.S. military, was described by Hegseth as limited in scope. The conflict will not be an “endless war,” he said. He characterized the objective as “destroy the missile threats, destroy the navy, no nukes.” Addressing Trump’s comment that he expected the conflict to be resolved in “four weeks or less,” Hegseth said, “President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or not take. Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could move up, it could move back.”
Standing beside Hegseth, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine offered a more measured assessment. “To be clear… this is not a single overnight operation,” Caine said. “The military objectives [US Central Command] and the Joint Force have been tasked with will take some time to achieve, and in some cases will be difficult and gritty work.” He added that the objective is “to protect and defend ourselves, and together with our regional partners, prevent Iran from the ability to project power outside of its borders.”
Civilian casualties have intensified scrutiny. Law professor Jennifer Taub denounced Hegseth’s remarks as “utter nonsense” and responded to his claim that U.S. and Israeli forces were striking targets “surgically” by saying, “Shameless. We or Israel bombed a girl’s school on Saturday when school was in session, killing 175.”
Hegseth’s comment that the United States would avoid getting bogged down in “stupid rules of engagement” alarmed observers. Journalist Mark Jacob warned, “‘No stupid rules of engagement’ means no Geneva Conventions or other international humanitarian laws, which the US signed and supported for more than a century,” adding, “Hegseth and Trump are pro-war crimes.”
Public opinion appears firmly against the war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted shortly after the strikes found that just 27% of voters approved of the attacks, while 43% disapproved and 29% said they were unsure. Among Republicans, 55% expressed support, but 13% disapproved and 31% were unsure. Only 19% of independents approved compared to 44% who disapproved. Among Democratic voters, 74% disapproved and just 7% approved.
The survey also showed broader skepticism toward recent uses of force, with 56% of respondents saying the president had been too quick to deploy military power in recent months, including in Venezuela, Syria, and Nigeria.
Experts who listened to the administration’s background briefing on the strikes characterized its case for war as weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the argument was “the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades.” He said administration officials “provided absolutely no evidence” to support claims of imminent threats. “What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable,” Kimball said.
Kimball also criticized media coverage, writing, “Reporters need to do more than stenography.” He added, “The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price.”
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that the administration’s shifting explanations reflected “desperation.” “It’s very clear that Trump has a tremendous difficulty finding a justification for this war of choice that he’s embarked on,” he said. “The reality is that if this goes on for another week or two, this is going to become a political disaster.” He continued, “So now he’s suddenly, desperately, using all kinds of justifications: Liberating the Iranian people, Iran is fighting against civilization.” Parsi concluded, “If he actually had a case, he would have stuck to that point and made it clearly. But he doesn’t have one.”
Congressional Democrats have faced criticism for what some describe as muted responses. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he “implored” Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next.” He added, “Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon,” but also said “the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region.” He stated that “The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East.”
Some Democrats were more forceful. Sen. Bernie Sanders said, “President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war.” He added, “The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq.” Sanders concluded, “The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price.”
All quotes used in this article are verbatim and drawn exclusively from the source material provided.
COMMENTS