The White House
Donald Trump at his desk as the “Epic Fury” operation against Iran unfolds
Preventive strikes, legitimate defense, regime change … A military operation, yes, but for what purpose? The United States seem to be struggling to justify their joint offensive with Israel against Iran. After a week of strikes in Iran and as many justifications from the Trump administration, HuffPost provides an overview.
At the start of the “Epic Fury” operation, the first US strikes target Iranian military infrastructure, including sites housing the country’s nuclear and ballistic programs. This was the main sticking point between the two countries during their talks, which failed just before the start of the offensive.
In the first explanation Donald Trump gave, he said: “Our goal is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime (…) Their menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases abroad and our allies around the world.” The president specifically mentions long-range missiles that “could potentially reach American territory.”
He emphasizes the desire to “destroy their missiles and level their missile industry (…) annihilate their navy” and to “ensure that terrorist proxies in the region can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces.”
From day two, the White House statements clarify that “President Trump has launched Operation Epic Fury to crush the Iranian regime and end the nuclear threat.” The intention to change the regime was not part of the previous day’s arguments, even though the strikes specifically targeted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, resulting in his death.
There may even be a personal vendetta behind the attack. According to an ABC News correspondent in Washington, the president also mentioned on Sunday that Iran’s attempts to assassinate him during the 2024 presidential campaign could have been a trigger for the operation. “I got him before he got me,” Donald Trump reportedly said in his exchange with ABC News.
By day three, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assures: “This is not a regime change war, but the regime has indeed changed,” during a press conference. This clearly contrasts with the previous day’s statements. He also affirms that it will not be an “endless war.”
On the same day, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio explains to journalists that the strikes began in response to “an imminent threat” of an Iranian attack on Israel. He suggests that Tel Aviv had urged Washington to act, stating, “We did not start this war, but with President Trump, we will finish it.”
This statement has failed to convince, even within the MAGA movement. “He is clearly telling us that we are at war with Iran because Israel forced us into it,” tweeted Matt Walsh, an extreme right-wing commentator.
Ultimately, was it an imminent threat to Israel? Or to the United States? The Pentagon, in any case, has made it clear. Midweek, it stated that there was no imminent threat to Israel, as Iran had not planned to strike first, only to retaliate in the event of an attack by the Jewish state.
The administration backpedals on its desire to topple the regime: “American soldiers are delivering devastating blows to definitively eliminate the Iranian regime,” reads a White House statement. Was the offensive also aimed at changing the Iranian government? Apparently, even the Americans do not have the answer.
In a statement, Donald Trump undermines the work done by his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Likely in an attempt to calm the confusion caused by the previous day’s statements, he asserts that he may have “forced Israel’s hand,” rather than the other way around. He adds, “If we hadn’t struck, they would have attacked first. I was convinced. It had to be done.” So who officially initiated the war?
The White House tenant even added that these strikes had been planned for a long time. What about the legitimate defense linked to the “imminent threat” mentioned in the first days of the military operation?
On Wednesday, the United States claimed to have attacked an Iranian ship with a torpedo fired by a submarine in international waters, nearly 3,000 km from Iran. This deviates from the logic of eliminating an imminent threat and legitimate defense.
The ambition seems to have widened. “Thanks to absolute dominance and overwhelming firepower, our fighters systematically dismantle the Iranian regime’s ability to threaten America, its allies, and global security,” states the White House.
Another point, President Donald Trump is “actively considering” the US role in Iran after the war, according to spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt. The goal is far more extensive than simply eliminating a threat.
By Thursday, Donald Trump seems to reaffirm his intention to go further by stating that he “must be involved” in choosing Khamenei’s successor. In just over a week, the discourse has shifted from responding to a threat to a desire for political control in the future of Iran. “Khamenei’s son is not acceptable to me,” he added, indicating that he envisions a role like in Venezuela after the capture of Nicolas Maduro.
Militarily, the United States are making significant progress, targeting new infrastructures and expanding more broadly across the territory.
Elise Ewers, an expert from the Council on Foreign Relations, questions: “Do we want to eliminate Iran’s ability to project power beyond its borders? Regime change? Reduction of naval capabilities? All of this is possible but not necessarily within the time frame given the real economic cost of these operations, particularly in the Gulf.”
“MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!)” now advances the American president, spinning his slogan “Make America Great Again.” On the seventh day of the war in the Middle East, Donald Trump shows more of his willingness to participate in Iran’s future.
“There will be no deal with Iran, only UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the choice of one or more GREAT AND ACCEPTABLE leaders, with many wonderful and very brave partners and allies, we will work tirelessly to lift Iran up, make it economically greater, better, and stronger than ever,” he wrote on his Truth Social network. A week after the start of the strikes in Iran and a rapid escalation of the conflict in the region, the simple will to eliminate an “imminent threat” seems more distant than ever.
