WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Monday pushed back against mounting criticism that he hasn't done enough to explain why it was necessary to start a war with Iran now or to articulate his vision for an endgame to the escalating conflict.
The frustration is coming not just from the political left but also from his MAGA base, as the conflict expands, energy prices surge, and the death toll in the Middle East rises in a war that the administration suggests may only be in the opening stages.
Recommended Videos
Trump also seemed to leave open the possibility for a more extensive U.S. military involvement, telling the New York Post on Monday that he was not ruling out the possibility of boots on the ground. It came as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that the administration would not get into the “foolish” exercise of telegraphing “what we will or will not do.”
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground — like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” Trump said. “I say ‘probably don’t need them,’ (or) ‘if they were necessary.’”
The president, and top aides, sought to defend his approach as Iran continues to retaliate by firing drones and missiles at Israel, American bases in the region, and at Persian Gulf neighbors. Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia in Lebanon, also traded strikes on Monday, opening another front in the conflict.
Some in MAGA world are fuming
Trump strode back into office last year on an “America First” pledge to keep the U.S. out of the sort of “forever wars” that bogged down some of his recent White House predecessors. Central to his foreign policy outlook dating to his first campaign has been his call to “abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change.”
He echoed this call during a visit to Saudi Arabia last year, saying that “so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”
But now Trump finds himself in a war of his own choosing that's spurring concern the U.S. could be dragged into another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.
“I’m not happy about the whole thing. I don’t think this was in America’s interests,” Erik Prince, a longtime Trump ally and a prominent private security contractor said Sunday in an appearance on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon's “War Room” podcast “It’s gonna uncork a significant can of worms and chaos, and destruction in Iran now.”
Prince added, “I don't see how this is in keeping with the president's MAGA commitment. I am disappointed.”
Other prominent allies questioning the decision to strike Iran include YouTube host Benny Johnson, influencer Andrew Tate, and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.
To be certain, many of Trump's staunch allies say they back Trump's decision, and see no signs of schism in their movement.
“No, ma’am, I think Iran, they’re bad actors,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told a reporter who asked about the divide. “They’ve killed Americans. In Iraq, they supply armaments. Hezbollah is part of their pact and they’ve supplied them with armaments and funds. And they do business with Chinese, so absolutely not. I think we’re good.”
Trump, speaking at a White House event on Monday, said the joint U.S. and Israel military operation was “substantially ahead of schedule” and estimated that it would take four to five weeks to meet the administration's objectives — although he said it could take longer.
“We have capability to go far longer than that,” Trump said.
Hegseth was even 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 move up. It could move back.”
The U.S. military expects to endure additional casualties in its operation against Iran, Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine told reporters. As of Monday, six U.S. service members had been killed in action and others badly injured as Iran carried out a barrage of retaliatory strikes around the region.
Regime change or regime collapse?
The administration has not detailed who it wants to see take control of Iran following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other top leaders in the opening salvos of the conflict.
Trump in announcing the start of the major combat operations called on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to put down their arms. But history suggests that air power alone is unlikely to bring about the kind of regime change that Trump says he wants to see in Iran.
The president also hasn't committed to assisting members of the Iranian opposition who he has called on to rise up against the ruling Islamic theocracy once the bombing campaign is done.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington think tank, said that Trump may ultimately be willing to settle for a “regime collapse” or “regime implosion.”
“That is very different (than regime change), not only because potentially it could be achieved, but it’s also something that enables the Trump administration to wash their hands of the consequences of this,” Parsi said.
Still, Israel is pressing Trump for a sustained operation that could deliver a decisive blow to Iran's clerical rule.
“I think the Israelis' biggest concern may be that President Trump would take … sort of the early offering, declaring victory,” said Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration who is now a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council. “I think they’d like to see this go longer, with the president’s support.”
Questions about Trump's rationale
Trump administration officials told congressional staff in private briefings Sunday that U.S. intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a pre-emptive strike against the U.S. The administration officials instead acknowledged there was a more general threat in the region from Iran’s missiles and proxy forces.
Yet Trump on Monday repeated his assertion that the U.S. needed to take action because of concerns that Iran was aiming to build ballistic missiles that could reach the United States.
Iran hasn’t acknowledged it is building or seeking to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, however, said in an unclassified report last year that Iran could develop a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.”
The president also repeated his claim that Iran was seeking to rebuild its nuclear program even after U.S. strikes carried out last June during the 12-day Israel-Iran war had in his words “obliterated” three key nuclear facilities.
Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, on Monday reaffirmed that Iran has an “ambitious” nuclear program but doesn’t have a program for building nuclear weapons currently. Iran has refused to let IAEA inspectors visit its damaged nuclear sites.
Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, said “regime change is not a viable nonproliferation strategy.”
“Iran’s nuclear program cannot be bombed away. Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away,” she said. “Even if there’s regime change, Iran’s program will still pose a proliferation risk.”
___
AP journalists Seung Min Kim, Nathan Ellgren, and Didi Tang contributed reporting.