Trump’s latest remarks on the Iran war have added to the confusion, as shifting explanations continue to raise questions over how the decision to launch military action was made.
File image: US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation alongside US Vice President JD Vance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, following US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, at the White House in Washington, DC. (Reuters/ANI Photo)
Four weeks into the conflict with Iran, there is still no single, settled version of how the United States chose to go to war. President Donald Trump’s latest remarks have only added to that uncertainty.
At a roundtable in Tennessee on Monday, Trump suggested that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth was among the first to argue in favour of military action.
Advertisement
“Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up, and you said, ‘Let’s do it because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.
Advertisement
Recalling internal discussions, he said Hegseth had pushed for a strike, warning that Iran could not be allowed to get close to a nuclear weapon.
“I called Pete. I called General Kane. I called a lot of our great people,” said Trump. “We got a problem in the Middle East Or we can take a stop and make a little journey into the Middle East and eliminate a big problem.”
The comment is the latest in a series of shifting explanations from within the administration.
So far, the reasoning behind the decision has varied depending on who is speaking.
Some within the administration have maintained that Israel was already moving towards action, making US involvement unavoidable. Others have framed the strike as a response to concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
There are also questions about what the administration expected in response.
Just hours before referencing Hegseth’s role, Trump said Iran’s retaliation across the region had come unexpectedly, suggesting it caught many off guard.
“Look at the way they attacked, unexpectedly, all of those countries,” he said, adding: “Nobody was even thinking about it.”
That claim sits uneasily alongside reports indicating that warnings of a possible response had been flagged earlier, raising questions about whether those signals were fully acted upon.
While the narrative around the decision continues to shift, one figure has remained consistently visible: Pete Hegseth.
The defence secretary has taken the lead in publicly outlining the objectives of the campaign – from targeting Iran’s missile and drone capabilities to weakening its naval strength.
He has also pushed back against criticism of the operation, defending its direction and urging a more favourable reading of developments so far.
Behind the scenes, however, there are indications that not everyone was aligned.
Trump acknowledged that Vice President JD Vance had been less enthusiastic about the move, though Vance has not voiced any public dissent.
Reports suggest divisions are growing, with some pushing for strong action while others urged a more cautious approach.
The strain appears to have had consequences. Joe Kent, who led the National Counterterrorism Center, stepped down last week, the first senior resignation linked to the conflict.
Between changing explanations, conflicting accounts and uncertain next steps, the picture remains far from clear.
What stands out is not just the scale of the conflict, but the lack of a consistent narrative around how it began, and who, ultimately, drove the decision.
Advertisement
