Trying to wrap your head around the statements of US President Donald Trump and members of his administration leaves you dizzy. Contradictory statements about the causes of the war, its objectives, and how it might end have made it impossible to understand Washington’s thinking.
On two separate occasions last Monday, Trump announced that the war was “almost finished” and that most of the military objectives had been achieved, signaling that military operations were about to end. That same day, the US Department of War tweeted: “We have only just begun to fight!”
Journalists have naturally highlighted the contradictory remarks of the president and his own agency. When they later asked Trump which version was more accurate (his claim that the war was “almost over” or the department’s claim that it had “just begun”), he only added to the confusion “I think you could say both,” he replied.
The confusion is not a bug, it seems to be a fundamental feature of Washington’s discourse since the beginning of the war. In the first week alone, the US administration offered a series of different explanations for the military operation, varying in substance and at times contradicting one another. Trump has claimed that it is a response to decades of Iranian aggression, a mission to destroy the missile program, a move to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow their government.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth agreed with the president on the overarching objectives of the war but attempted to clarify that regime change was not the goal, even as he encouraged Iranians to seize this opportunity and topple their government. Moreover, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed in a strike launched during the first few hours of the campaign, giving credence to the idea that the military operation was not limited to containing Iran’s nuclear and missile threat, signalling an attempt at regime change or imposing changes in its behavior as seen in Venezuela.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for his part, offered a third explanation for launching the operations. He said the United States acted because Israel had been planning to launch a military strike anyway, and that Iran would have retaliated by attacking American forces, compelling Washington to move preemptively. This statement suggested that Israel had presented the United States with a fait accompli and drawn it into the war, sparking outrage.
Trump quickly denied the claim, insisting that the decision to go to war had been entirely his own and not a result of Israeli pressure. He told reporters that the reports he received from his advisers had convinced him that Iran was on the verge of launching its own attack first, prompting him to act before it could.
These discrepancies clearly raise questions. They show that the objectives of the war have not been defined. Alongside this strategic confusion, there are signs of issues with operational coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv. The most telling example is the fallout from Israel’s attack on Iranian fuel depots, triggering massive fires and that unsettled global oil markets. The reaction in Washington was unusually blunt; Senior American officials acknowledged that the attacks had gone far further than expected, while Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Netanyahu’s staunchest supporters and most hawkish members of Congress, publicly called on Israel to “please be cautious” in its selection of targets.
This incident reflects deeper concerns in Washington. American officials fear that Israel may treat the war as a blank check and choose its targets unilaterally. Oil facilities are an extremely sensitive subject, not only for the countries of the region but for the global economy as a whole. Any further escalation could also threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and precipitate a major economic shock.
The gradual shift in the narrative of the war is also worrying. Instead of relying exclusively on military and security justifications, some have begun to introduce explicitly religious justifications. Alongside Netanyahu’s penchant for biblical reference, Secretary of War Hegseth has also spoken of in similar terms, even concluding his address to American troops with religious phrases and quotations.
This is not just rhetoric; it reflects a strategic mindset that should worry us as well. A war centered on clear objectives, such as destroying missiles or nuclear facilities, can theoretically end once those capabilities are dismantled. By introducing the narrative of religious war, whether explicitly or implicitly, the administration risks transforming a geopolitical clash into something far more complex and dangerous.
All of this adds to the debate and anxiety surrounding the course of the war, and how and when it might end. It comes at a time when the region and the world needs clarity and cannot afford protracted conflicts and expanding wars.
