WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday pushed back against mounting criticism that he has not done enough to explain why war against Iran is now necessary or to articulate his vision for an eventual endgame to the escalating conflict.
The frustration is coming not just from the political left but from his “Make America Great Again” base as the conflict widens, energy prices soar and the death toll rises in the Middle East, and the administration believes the war may only be in the beginning stages.
Trump also appeared to leave open the possibility of broader U.S. military involvement, telling the New York Post on Monday that he would not rule out sending troops on the ground. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth told reporters the government would not do the “stupid” thing of communicating “what we will or will not do”.
“I have nothing against boots on the ground — like every president will say, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I wouldn’t say that,” Trump said. “I say ‘probably they won’t be needed,’ (or) ‘if necessary.'”
As Iran continues to retaliate by firing drones and missiles at Israel, U.S. bases in the region and its Persian Gulf neighbors, the president and top aides have sought to defend their actions. The Israeli- and Iran-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah also carried out attacks on Monday, opening another front in the conflict.
Some people in the MAGA world are angry.
Trump marched back into office last year with an “America First” pledge to free the country from the kind of “forever wars” that had ensnared some of his recent White House predecessors. From his first campaign, central to his foreign policy outlook was his call to “abandon failed policies of nation-building and regime change.”
He echoed that call during a visit to Saudi Arabia last year, saying “so-called ‘state builders’ destroy far more countries than they built – interventionists are meddling in complex societies they don’t even understand themselves.”
But now Trump finds himself entangled in a war of his own choosing, raising concerns that the United States could be dragged into another long-term conflict in the Middle East.
“I’m not happy with the whole thing. I don’t think it’s in the interest of the United States,” longtime Trump ally Eric Prince, a prominent private security contractor, said Sunday on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast. “It’s going to cause a lot of worms, chaos and destruction in Iran.”
Prince added, “I don’t think this is consistent with the president’s MAGA commitments. I’m disappointed.”
Other high-profile allies who have questioned the decision to strike Iran include YouTube host Benny Johnson, influencer Andrew Tate and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.
To be sure, many of Trump’s staunch allies say they support his decision and see no signs of division in their movements.
“No, ma’am, I think Iran is the bad guy,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told reporters about the disagreement. “They kill Americans. In Iraq, they provide arms. Hezbollah is part of their agreement, they provide them arms and money. And they do business with the Chinese, so absolutely not. I think we’re good.”
Trump told a White House event on Monday that joint U.S.-Israeli military action was “well ahead of schedule” and estimated it would take four to five weeks to achieve the administration’s goals, although he said it could take longer.
“We have the ability to go further,” Trump said.
Heggs was more vague about the time frame.
“President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take. Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks,” Hegseth said. “It could go up. It could go down.”
Dan Kaine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the U.S. military expected to suffer more casualties in operations against Iran. As of Monday, six U.S. service members had been killed and others seriously injured in a series of Iranian retaliatory attacks across the region.
Regime change or regime collapse?
The U.S. government has not detailed who it wants to take control of Iran after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other senior leaders were killed in the opening battle of the conflict.
Trump called on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to lay down their weapons as he announced the start of major combat operations. But history shows that airpower alone is unlikely to bring about the kind of regime change that Trump says he wants to see in Iran.
The president also has not committed to assisting members of Iran’s opposition, who he has called on to rise up against the ruling Islamic theocracy after the bombing campaign ends.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington think tank, said Trump may ultimately be willing to accept “regime collapse” or “regime implosion.”
“This is very different (from regime change) not only because it’s possible, but it also allows the Trump administration to get away with that,” Passi said.
Still, Israel is urging Trump to take sustained action that could deal a decisive blow to Iran’s clerical rule.
“I think the biggest fear among Israelis is probably that President Trump will accept … some kind of early overture to declare victory,” said Daniel Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration and now a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council. “I think they’d like to see this continue longer with the president’s support.”
Questions about Trump’s rationale
Trump administration officials told congressional staff in a private briefing on Sunday that U.S. intelligence did not indicate Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the United States. Instead, administration officials acknowledge the presence of a more general threat in the region from Iranian missiles and proxy forces.
However, Trump on Monday reiterated his assertion that the United States needs to take action amid concerns that Iran is targeting ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States.
Iran has not admitted that it is building or seeking to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said in an unclassified report last year that Iran could develop a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue such a capability.”
The president also reiterated his assertion that Iran was seeking to rebuild its nuclear program even after a U.S. strike last June “destroyed” three key nuclear facilities during the 12-day Israel-Iran war.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi reiterated on Monday that Iran has an “ambitious” nuclear program but currently has no plans to build a nuclear weapon. Iran has refused to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to visit its damaged nuclear facilities.
“Regime change is not a viable nonproliferation strategy,” said Kelsey Davenport, director of nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association.
“Iran’s nuclear program cannot be blown up. Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be blown up,” she said. “Even if regime change occurs, Iran’s plans will continue to pose a proliferation risk.”
___
Associated Press reporters Seung Min Kim, Nathan Ellgren and Didi Tang contributed reporting.
