As U.S. and Israeli military strikes and Iran's armed response have escalated into a fourth day, the Donald Trump administration's wavering justifications for the strikes on Iran are fueling a widening debate over the legitimacy of the military action.
According to the Washington Post (WP) on the 3rd, confusion is mounting as key White House officials offer differing statements about the purpose and direction of the strikes on Iran. Adding to this, internal analysis has surfaced indicating that virtually no evidence was found that Iran posed an "imminent threat" against the U.S. homeland just before the strikes, casting doubt on the rationale for the military action.
Earlier, on the 28th of last month, President Trump disclosed that the United States and Israel had carried out strikes on Iran and urged the Iranian people to reclaim their sovereignty. Through his social media (SNS) platform Truth Social, President Trump said, "Khamenei, one of the most evil people in history, is dead," adding, "a single great opportunity for the Iranian people to take back their country."
In particular, he described the military action against Iran as justice not only for the people, but for all great Americans and for many people around the world who were killed or maimed by Khamenei and his bloodthirsty thugs, emphasizing that the "bombing will continue without pause as long as necessary to achieve the goal of peace across the Middle East and the world." This suggests the strikes were carried out to topple Iran's dictatorship.
Trump also began laying out multiple grounds to justify the strikes immediately after he released the action. Right after announcing the strikes, he shared a media report on Truth Social claiming "Iran interfered in the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections," and asserted that "Khamenei attempted assassination twice," adding, "I got him first."
By contrast, key administration officials offered different rationales. Ministry of National Defense Minister Pete Hegseth said at a Pentagon briefing, "Iran was repeatedly lying to secure nuclear weapons while holding a gun to our necks," adding, "U.S. bases, Americans, and all our allies were in their crosshairs." Hegseth in particular added, "The objective of the strikes is not regime change," directly contradicting President Trump's earlier remarks.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, "We knew Israel would strike Iran," adding, "In that case, we took preemptive action to minimize risk because retaliation and casualties against U.S. forces could occur." The diverging interpretations among cabinet members suggest that even inside the White House, there is confusion over the same military operation.
On top of this, indications are increasingly emerging that the "imminent threat" from the Iranian regime that President Trump cited in an earlier speech was effectively not found, further amplifying questions about the military action.
According to a report the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released last year, Iran has not yet restarted its nuclear program, and it is expected to take about 10 years for Iran to obtain an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the United States. Most of Iran's vast missile arsenal is currently medium- and short-range systems, and authorities assess that over the past two years Iran's launches were acts of "retaliation" for threats to its territory or interests, with no cases of preemptive attack.
Mark Warner, the Democratic senator who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized that there is no intelligence anywhere indicating Iran posed an "imminent threat" to the United States. He noted that any threat was limited to Israel, leaving the United States without grounds to intervene. Multiple internal officials also reportedly testified that they had not received information indicating rapid advances in Iran's missile or nuclear programs just before the strikes.
Iran is also pushing back strongly. The United States selectively waded into war on Israel's behalf, and there was no "imminent threat" from Iran toward the United States, according to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's office.
Public opinion in the United States on the strikes is sharply divided. A WP poll found that 52% of respondents "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed the strikes, while 39% expressed support. Even within the conservative camp, opinion is split over the action. Republican leaders backed the president's decision, citing Iran's long-standing support for terrorism and nuclear ambitions, while conservative commentator and broadcaster Megyn Kelly raised her voice in criticism, referencing six fallen U.S. service members and saying, "They died for Iran, for Israel."
In response, a move to rein in the action at the congressional level is gaining momentum. Democrats have labeled the strikes an "illegal war without congressional authorization" and are reportedly pushing a vote on a resolution to limit further military action. Tess Bridgeman, former National Security Council (NSC) legal adviser at the White House, said, "Possession of weapons, by itself, cannot be equated with an 'imminent threat,'" adding, "On the administration's explanation alone, it is difficult to meet the legal threshold for a large-scale armed confrontation."