Trump builds case for war with Iran ahead of pivotal talks

The Hill · Feb 25, 2026 · Collected from RSS

Full Article

President Trump used Tuesday’s State of the Union address to touch on the myriad reasons why an attack on Iran might be justified, from the regime’s history of attacks on Americans to its violent suppression at home, alleged nuclear ambitions and plans to build a missile that could reach America. The speech amplified warnings coming from the administration as it seeks to justify America’s massive military buildup in the region. But even Trump’s supporters say he could be making a stronger case for urgent action against the longtime foe. “I think there’s a lot of justification for action, I’m not sure he’s verbalizing all of it,” said Michael Makovsky, President and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, which wants the U.S. to pursue regime change in Tehran. “I think he could do a better job of explaining all the reasons he should proceed with the strike if that becomes necessary.” Senior Senate Democrats emerged on Tuesday from a closed-door briefing on the administration’s war plans for Iran urging the administration to make its case to the American public. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner are scheduled to join negotiations with Iranians on Thursday in Geneva, viewed as a make-or-break opportunity to avoid a massive military conflict. Last week, Trump said Iran had 10 days to make a deal or “bad things happen.” Witkoff accused the Iranian regime this weekend of being a week away from developing nuclear-weapons-grade enriched uranium. However, Trump is stepping on his own message with his nuclear warnings, given that he insisted U.S. bombings of Iranian nuclear facilities over the summer obliterated its capacity to build a nuclear bomb. Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, said Trump on Tuesday was clearly trying to outline the building blocks for making the case for military action, “but he did not lay them out in a way that would box him in.” However, he said both the political and military challenges would be difficult, particularly compared to the successful operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro last month. “Trump himself has set an impossible standard because not a single American got killed in the operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and whatever he does here is going to be compared to that,” he said. “At least in the Venezuela case he could make the argument — it wasn’t valid — but it was an argument, that this had to do with fentanyl. He has no such arguments he can make about this. Particularly after having reiterated that he already obliterated their [nuclear] program.” There’s bipartisan agreement that Iran poses a significant long-term threat to the security of the U.S. and its allies. One of the few moments where some Democrats stood and applauded Trump’s speech Tuesday night was in reaction to his statement that he will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But many Americans are not convinced that a military attack against Iran serves U.S. interests. An Economist/YouGov poll conducted late last week recorded nearly half of Americans somewhat, or strongly opposing, a military attack against Iran. In a poll conducted in early February by the University of Maryland, only 21 percent of respondents supported a U.S. attack against Iran under the current circumstances. Among the 1,000 people surveyed, 40 percent of Republicans supported an attack. That’s a far cry from the over 70 percent of American voters who supported the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. And the fallout from that war has dramatically shaped the isolationist foreign policy views of Trump’s MAGA movement, most strongly represented within his administration by Vice President Vance. Vance on Wednesday said diplomacy is preferred, echoing the president’s remarks from the State of the Union. But he said that if military action is taken, it’s to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. “The president has been as crystal clear as he could be. Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon, that would be the ultimate military objective if that’s the route that he chose,” he told Fox News. “That is, of course, what we’re trying to accomplish, as the president said, through the preferred route of diplomacy.” Nicholas Carl, a fellow with the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute, said Trump had been clear about his readiness for war, but less so when it comes to his goals. “What’s missing yet from his public statements is a clear articulation of US objectives in the event that we launch strikes into Iran,” he said, noting public comments ranging from a desire for regime change to the need to degrade Tehran’s weapons programs. “Trump must decide what is needed to satisfy his desire to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. In either case, the United States would need to conduct an extensive bombardment campaign across Iran and should expect significant Iranian retaliation.” Iran maintains its nuclear capabilities are for peaceful purposes, but it possesses a stockpile of highly enriched uranium that can fuel a bomb. Saeid Golkar, Senior Nonresident Fellow with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, predicted that Trump would seek a limited option if he attacks Iran. “What Trump said so far, in particular during the State of the Union, is that they’re [Iran] continuing to work on the nuclear program, continuing on ballistic missiles and he talked about the human rights situation. But how they are going to do it, that’s a very good question. Nobody knows exactly,” he said. “My sense of what I’m seeing, we’re not going to see Iraq and Afghanistan and not going to see Venezuela,” he continued. “We are going to see something in between. You will see abduction and killing and targeting of a lot of military and security elite, and trying to convince the remaining elite it’s time to stop the program.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine has reportedly warned Trump that a small or medium strike on Iran carries a high potential for American casualties and depletion of American weapons stockpiles. Parsi said Iran has also signaled it would engage in a larger-scale retaliation against the U.S. in the event of an attack, compared to what was considered a limited response to the American and Israeli strikes this summer. After Trump hit Iranian nuclear sites, he forced Israel to end its strikes against the country and declared a ceasefire with Iran. “The reason the attack hasn’t happened yet is because the Iranians have rejected that they will respond politely,” he said. “They believe they have a better chance at military confrontation than diplomacy, not because they believe they can win the war, but the belief they can inflict so much damage on the U.S. that Trump backs off.” Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.