Trump Keeps Moving the Goalposts on His War With Iran

Is the United States’ goal in Iran regime change or not? Seven days into the military operation, President Donald Trump and top administration officials haven’t provided consistent answers.

The administration has insisted that the goal was not regime change, and that it would not engage in “feckless nation building.” But Trump signaled on Friday that the U.S. would be involved in charting Iran’s future after the war’s conclusion.

“There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before,” Trump’s post read.

On Thursday, Trump said he would have to be personally involved in the selection of Iran’s next leader following reports that Iran’s deceased Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, would be the next leader.

“Khamenei’s son is a lightweight,” Trump said in a phone call with Axios. “I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy [Rodríguez] in Venezuela.”

This suggests a significant level of involvement in steering Iran’s future during and after the war, though the Trump administration has also said from the beginning the goal of the operation was not regime change.

The administration, which did not seek congressional approval for war, is under pressure to provide a clear justification and end goal for its military operation in Iran. NOTUS reviewed the statements from the president and his top officials after the start of the bombing and found the administration has contradicted itself and repeatedly shifted its reasoning for the war.

“President Trump and the administration have clearly outlined their goals with regard to Operation Epic Fury: destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles and production capacity, demolish their navy, end their ability to arm proxies, and prevent them from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon,” a White House official told NOTUS. “The President has long called attention to the egregious human rights issues in Iran, and he naturally wants the Iranian people to have a chance at better lives.”

Here is the timeline of what this administration has said:

Trump officials and the president initially claimed “imminent threats” of Iran attacking the United States as the reasoning for the war.

FEB. 28: “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard and terrible people.” — Trump, in a statement about combat operations in Iran

But when briefing congressional leaders on Capitol Hill, Trump administration officials said they had no intelligence suggesting a preemptive strike from Iran on U.S. assets in the region was imminent, according to the AP.

By the second and third day of the war, the administration had shifted its stated focus from preemptively attacking due to immediate threats, to center on preventing Iran from attaining long-range missiles and nuclear weapons.

At that time, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said the goal was not regime change.

MARCH 1: “An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be a dire threat to every American.” — Trump, Operation Epic Fury Update

MARCH 2: “This is not a so-called regime-change war, but the regime sure did change. … This is not Iraq, this is not endless. Our generation knows better, and so does this president.” — Hegseth, briefing reporters

MARCH 2: “Iran’s stubborn and self-evident nuclear pursuits, their targeting of global shipping lanes and their swelling arsenal of ballistic missiles and killer drones were no longer — are no longer tolerable risks. … Iran had a conventional gun to our head as they tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb.” — Hegseth, briefing reporters

One day later, the explanation shifted again with Secretary of State Marco Rubio claiming Israel’s plans for military intervention were behind the United States’ action.

MARCH 3: “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn’t act.” — Rubio, briefing reporters

By Wednesday, administration officials were oscillating between explanations: the imminent threat of attack, destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, destroying Iran’s military. Hegseth injected yet another reasoning: revenge.

MARCH 4: “I think the president … had a good feeling that the Iranian regime was going to strike United States assets and our personnel in the region, and the president was facing with a choice: Does the United States of America use our military and our capabilities to strike first to take out this threat that has been threatening our country and our people for 47 years, or is he going to, as commander in chief, sit back and watch as the rogue Iranian regime attacks our people in the region?” — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, briefing reporters

MARCH 4: “The mission is laser focused: obliterate Iran’s missiles and drones and facilities that produce them, annihilate its navy and critical security infrastructure and sever their pathway to nuclear weapons. Iran will never assess a nuclear bomb, not on our watch, not ever.” — Hegseth, briefing reporters

MARCH 4: “Yesterday, the leader of the unit who attempted to assassinate President Trump has been hunted down and killed. Iran tried to kill President Trump, and President Trump got the last laugh.” — Hegseth, briefing reporters

MARCH 5: “I WAS THE HUNTED, AND NOW I’M THE HUNTER,” The White House wrote in a post accompanying the clip of Hegseth announcing the leader’s killing.

Trump has been teasing military action in Iran since as early as January, when he said U.S. forces may be required in the region to address the killing of protestors. The implication then was that the U.S. was interested in bringing about regime change.

When the U.S. actually struck, the administration spent days giving different justifications for the war. But now the president appears back to speaking about regime change, and his willingness to stay involved in the region for a longer period appears to be growing as well.