Donald Trump's rhetoric suggests the aggression against Iran is not an American war

Written for NAP by: Prof. Hazim Bašić, PhD

The start of the US-Israeli attack on Iran at the end of February 2026 opened not only a military conflict but also a communication war in which the statements of American President Donald Trump have become as controversial as the military operations themselves. Over a period of several weeks, Trump has made a series of contradictory statements about the reasons for the attack, the war aims, the duration of the conflict, the significance of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's nuclear program, and alleged American successes. The developments since the beginning of the aggression indicate 'fluid' war aims.

The assassination that changed the character of the war

Although the US-Israeli aggression was intended to be presented as a 'limited military action' aimed at neutralizing Iran's nuclear program, the assassination of Iran's supreme leader marked a dramatic turning point. After this event, the conflict took on a different character. Thus, although Trump had previously stated on several occasions that the US did not want 'regime change,' the denial came on the very first day of the war. Following the assassination of the Ayatollah and the killing of 165 girls on the same day, the entire conflict turned into a deeply political and symbolic war. Trump simultaneously called on Iran to negotiate and warned of 'devastating consequences' if retaliation followed. The schizophrenic message calls for negotiations on one hand, while threatening 'total war' on the other.

Part of Trump's rhetoric suggested that the elimination of Khamenei would reduce tensions and open space for 'more moderate leadership.' However, such an act almost always produces the opposite effect, mobilizing society and strengthening the hardliners in politics. Trump confirmed his messianic syndrome through the statement that he (!?) would install 'more moderate leadership.'

The assassination of the supreme leader represents a point of no return, as it concerns Iran's state sovereignty and political survival. The assassination increased the legitimacy of Iran's response, reduced the space for a diplomatic solution, and turned the conflict into a broader geopolitical confrontation. Iran's response was short and clear: 'you started the war, we will determine its end.'

War without a clear reason: From 'nuclear program' to 'response to the closure of the strait'

In the early days of the conflict, Trump presented the attack as a response to a security threat and Iran's nuclear program, even though earlier, after a twelve-day war, he claimed that Iran's nuclear capabilities had already been 'destroyed.' This rhetoric from Trump is reminiscent of the arguments previously used before interventions in Iraq and Libya: first the threat, then the constantly changing evidence, only to reveal in the end that the key evidence for the alleged threat does not exist.

Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, Trump initially downplayed the significance of its closure. He claimed that they didn't need it and that the US would quickly secure passage, and then threatened to 'destroy power plants' if Iran did not open the passage within 48 hours. At the same time, he criticized NATO allies, accusing them of not wanting to help secure passage, which further deepened the confusion about the operation's objectives. It seems that control of oil has become the real goal, while political reasons have been pushed into the background. Trump's rhetoric has shifted from 'democratizing Iran' to 'securing tankers.' The Strait of Hormuz has gone from a secondary issue to the central theme of the war, for which Trump is mobilizing additional forces.

Trump sometimes downplayed the global consequences of the strait's closure, and sometimes warned of 'huge economic consequences' and the need for military action. Meanwhile, the conflict has caused disruption to global oil flows and an energy crisis. This change in rhetoric is a consequence of rising oil prices and market pressure, not a change in war strategy.

'We have completely destroyed,' but Iran continues to defend itself

Trump has repeatedly suggested that the operation would be swift and decisive, constantly changing his assessment of the war's length. He has egocentrically declared victory on multiple occasions. This contradiction of a 'war that has already been won but is still being fought' indicates a gap between political rhetoric and military reality.

However, the war has entered its fourth week with escalation and expansion of the conflict. At the same time, he issued ultimatums that prolonged tensions, such as the threat to destroy Iran's energy infrastructure (while previously stating that he would spare 'economic' infrastructure).

Trump, who is generally prone to making sensational statements, claimed on March 13 that American attacks had 'completely destroyed' Iranian military targets on Kharg Island, calling the operation 'one of the most powerful in history.' Before that, when asked by a journalist about the capture of Kharg, he said: 'It is one of many possibilities,' 'it is not high on the list of priorities,' and 'I can change my mind in a second.'

The tactic of 'constant ultimatum' is a sign of a lack of clear strategy, but also indicates improvisation. The extension of deadlines and constant threats suggest that Washington did not expect prolonged resistance.

A war waged while its reasons are invented later

Trump's statements about the war against Iran – from 'swift operation,' to 'complete destruction,' seeking help from the Kurds (with the later claim that he didn't need them), to threats of new strikes – have shown deep inconsistency. Each new statement changed the war aims: the nuclear program, regime change in Tehran, control of the strait, the ballistic program, protection of tankers, and even pressure on allies.

Such communication not only reflects an unclear strategy but also becomes an escalation factor itself. In modern conflicts, the president's word has almost the same effect as a military operation. In the case of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, Trump's statements are consistently contradictory. The result is the continuation of a war in which the real goal – the subjugation or total destruction of Iran – is being hidden and justified. Meanwhile, the world is trying to understand whether Washington is conducting a clearly defined military campaign or improvising geopolitics.