WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday defended his decision to authorize strikes against Iran, even as criticism mounted from both Democrats and within his own base, who questioned the rationale for a conflict that threatens to escalate across the Middle East and disrupt global energy markets. The administration is facing increasing pressure to articulate a clear endgame as the conflict expands, with Israel and Hezbollah exchanging strikes and six U.S. Service members killed in retaliatory attacks.
The strikes, which killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top leaders, have prompted accusations that Trump has abandoned his long-held “America First” foreign policy and his promise to avoid “forever wars.” “We said ‘No More Foreign Wars, No More Regime Change!’” Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former Trump ally, wrote on X, according to reporting by The Guardian. “We said it on rally stage after rally stage, speech after speech.”
Trump, however, dismissed concerns that the operation contradicted his previous statements, telling the New York Post he believes his supporters “love what I’m doing.” He characterized the conflict as necessary to protect American interests and global security, asserting that Iran was on a path to acquiring nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. He repeated claims that previous strikes had “obliterated” key Iranian nuclear facilities, despite recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicating Iran maintains an “ambitious” nuclear program.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking to reporters, declined to outline specific plans for future military action, stating the administration would not “telegraph” its intentions. Trump himself suggested the possibility of deploying ground troops, a departure from his previous rhetoric, stating, “I don’t say ‘no boots on the ground’—like every president says. I say ‘probably don’t need them,’ [or] ‘if they were necessary.’”
The internal dissent within Trump’s political coalition is becoming increasingly visible. Erik Prince, a long-time Trump ally and founder of the private security firm formerly known as Blackwater, expressed disappointment with the decision to strike Iran, arguing it would “uncork a significant can of worms and chaos” and was inconsistent with the “MAGA commitment.” Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and YouTube host Benny Johnson have similarly voiced criticism, according to reports.
Despite the criticism, some Republicans remain supportive of the president’s actions. Representative Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) defended the strikes, citing Iran’s support for militant groups and its relationship with China.
The administration has offered conflicting timelines for achieving its objectives. Trump estimated the operation would take “four to five weeks,” but acknowledged it could take longer. Hegseth offered an even more ambiguous timeframe, suggesting the duration could be “two weeks, six weeks,” or even longer. The Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine warned that additional U.S. Casualties are expected.
The administration has not articulated a clear plan for the aftermath of Khamenei’s death, nor has it identified a preferred successor. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, suggested the administration may be willing to settle for a “regime collapse” rather than a fully orchestrated regime change. There is currently no sign of a widespread uprising against the Iranian government, despite Trump’s calls for the Iranian people to “seize control of your destiny.”
Questions remain about the intelligence that prompted the strikes. Administration officials told congressional staff that U.S. Intelligence did not indicate Iran was preparing an imminent attack on the United States, but rather that there was a general threat posed by Iran’s missile capabilities and proxy forces. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency has previously assessed that Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capability by 2035, should it choose to do so.
Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, cautioned that “regime change is not a viable nonproliferation strategy,” and that Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be eliminated through military action.
Israel, meanwhile, is reportedly urging Trump to pursue a sustained operation aimed at dismantling Iran’s clerical rule, fearing the president may settle for a limited intervention. Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, stated that Israel’s “biggest concern may be that President Trump would take … sort of the early offering, declaring victory.”
