U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated on March 2 that President Donald Trump's administration had "clear goals" when launching its campaign against Iran. He pledged that the mission would be "very, very transparent" to American service members.

However, before the airstrikes on Iran on the morning of February 28, the U.S. administration did not explain its military action's goals or motivations to Congress or the public. In the three days since, it has continuously shifted its objectives and contradicted itself.

On March 2, for the first time since launching the campaign, President Trump publicly outlined four goals for the operation: destroying Iran's missile capabilities, eliminating its navy, preventing the country from acquiring nuclear weapons, and stopping the supply of weapons to proxy forces.

U.S. President Donald Trump meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, White House, on March 3. Photo: AP

Nonetheless, the Trump administration's actions to date have not demonstrated the consistency it claimed.

Nuclear threat

Most notably, the administration's description of the nuclear threat from Iran has changed.

Iran has long pursued a uranium enrichment program, which it claims is for civilian purposes. Western countries have imposed sanctions on Iran, accusing Tehran of harboring ambitions to build nuclear weapons, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it signed in 1970.

Tehran rejected the accusations and, in 2015, signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the P5+1 group to significantly limit its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. However, during his first term, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement and reimposed sanctions on Iran.

After assuming office for a second term, Trump continued to increase pressure on Iran, culminating in airstrikes on Tehran's nuclear facilities in June 2025. For months, the U.S. President asserted that these airstrikes had "eliminated" Iran's nuclear program, but recently, he and his associates began to inflate that threat again.

Steve Witkoff, the White House special envoy for the Middle East, announced on February 22 that Iran was enriching uranium at levels "far exceeding" civilian use thresholds. He stated that Tehran was "probably about one week away from possessing enough nuclear material to build an industrial-grade bomb".

Subsequently, in his State of the Union address early last week, Trump claimed Iran was developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) "capable of reaching the American continent".

Iran released a video showcasing its underground arsenal and scenes of strikes on locations described as U.S. bases in the region. Video: Fars

However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio contradicted Special Envoy Witkoff, stating on February 25 that Iran was not "currently conducting uranium enrichment" but was attempting to restart its nuclear program through other means.

U.S. intelligence also offered assessments that conflicted with Trump's. According to a declassified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment from last year, the prospect of Iran attacking the U.S. with ICBMs was still a decade away. Furthermore, no intelligence sources indicated an imminent threat requiring a preemptive strike, U.S. media reported.

By March 2, Secretary Hegseth presented a completely different explanation. He did not claim Iran was enriching uranium at dangerous levels, as Special Envoy Witkoff had, nor did he assert that Iran was close to possessing missiles capable of reaching the U.S. Instead, he cited Iran's increased development of conventional weapons "to advance more serious threats".

"Iran is building powerful missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to create a conventional shield for its nuclear intimidation ambitions", Hegseth stated, adding that this endangers "our bases, service members, and allies" in the region.

"They are delaying to buy time to replenish their missile stockpiles and restart their nuclear ambitions", he emphasized.

Within one week, the stated reasons shifted from an imminent risk of Iran possessing nuclear bomb material to the country being on the verge of acquiring missiles capable of reaching U.S. territory, and now to Iran using conventional weapons to lay the groundwork for "restarting nuclear ambitions".

Trump reiterated these comments at noon on March 2, mentioning that Iran was seeking to "shield the development of nuclear weapons and make all efforts to stop them extremely difficult". However, he then again referred to Iran allegedly developing ICBMs capable of striking the U.S.

Risk of Iranian attack

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth during a press conference at the Pentagon on March 2. Photo: AP

Beyond the nuclear threat, the U.S. administration last week also warned of an imminent Iranian attack on U.S. forces in the Middle East, citing this as part of the reason Trump had to act immediately.

A senior administration official stated there was evidence of Iran potentially launching a "preemptive" strike on U.S. forces in the Middle East. "The President decided not to sit idly by while American soldiers in the region faced missile attacks", the official said.

However, that explanation also raised skepticism. According to an anonymous source familiar with intelligence, there were no indications that Iran planned to attack U.S. forces or assets before February 28.

On March 1, Pentagon officials also acknowledged this reality when briefing Congress, CNN reported.

By March 2, Secretary Rubio declared Iran an "imminent threat" because the U.S. believed the country would retaliate if attacked by Israel.

[VIDEO_440692]

Smoke rising at the U.S. operations center in Shuaiba port, southern Kuwait, after Iran's attack on March 1. Video: CNN

"We know that if Iran is attacked, and we believe they will be attacked, they will immediately target us, so we will not sit and take a hit before striking back", he told reporters on Capitol Hill.

U.S. Secretary of State Rubio affirmed the goal was to "eliminate the threat from Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and naval forces, especially naval assets".

The nature of the threat is crucial. What that threat was before the airstrikes and how dangerous it was determines the legitimacy of U.S. and Israeli actions, both in terms of public opinion and international law, experts noted.

Regime change in Iran

Another inconsistency in the U.S. administration's messaging revolved around the issue of regime change in Iran.

Just hours after launching the airstrikes, Trump repeatedly emphasized that regime change was a goal, and perhaps even the primary goal, of the campaign.

"All I want is freedom for the people there", the President told the Washington Post.

In his first video explaining the campaign, Trump also highlighted this issue.

"The U.S. is supporting you with overwhelming power and fierce firepower", he messaged the Iranian opposition. "Now is the time to seize your destiny and usher in a glorious, prosperous future. This is the time to act. Do not let it pass".

"When we finish, take over your government", the President added.

But in recent days, Washington has continuously downplayed its role in Iranian regime change. This was evident when Secretary Hegseth stated on March 2: "This is not a war to change the government".

Secretary Rubio, meanwhile, said the U.S. administration "would not feel regret" if there were a regime change, but again affirmed that the core objective of the campaign was to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capabilities, not regime change.

A portrait of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei displayed on a street in Tehran on March 1. Photo: AP

Additionally, the administration's statements regarding the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei also showed inconsistencies.

On March 1, President Trump said, "I took him out before he could act against me... I acted first". He added that "they tried to target me two times", seemingly implying Iran was involved in two foiled assassination plots against him. The U.S. President offered no evidence for this.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz suggested that Iran's desire to assassinate Trump was one reason for the U.S. attack.

However, Republican Representative Mike Turner stated in an interview with CBS News that Secretary Rubio had reaffirmed to him that "we are not targeting Khamenei, we are not targeting Iran's leadership".

Secretary Hegseth reiterated this on March 2. When asked to comment on Khamenei's killing, he only said: "I think Israel did a very good job".

Iran's post-campaign future

Regarding who would take over after the dust of war settled, the President made continuously changing comments last weekend.

In an interview with the New York Times, he stated he had "three very good options" for who would run Iran after the current campaign concluded but refused to name them. But in a subsequent interview with ABC News, the President unexpectedly implied that those individuals were, in fact, dead.

"The attack was so successful that it eliminated most of the candidates", Trump said. "None of the people we once considered will be there because they are all dead. Those in second or third place are also gone".

The administration also struggled to provide a timeline for the campaign, with Secretary Hegseth calling it "a trick question".

In a series of comments last weekend, President Trump offered timelines ranging from "four to five weeks", "two or three days", and up to one week. He also said it "would be a four-week campaign" before suggesting it might be shorter.

On March 2, the President told CNN that "we are a little ahead of schedule", implying the U.S. would intensify military action against Iran.

"We haven't even hit hard yet. The big wave has not happened. The big battle is coming", he said.

And at an event on the same day, the President stated the military "is capable of conducting operations for much longer" than the previously projected four to five weeks.

"As long as necessary", he declared.

By Vu Hoang (Source: CNN, AFP, Reuters)