Two weeks after the beginning of the offensive against Iran, the United States still does not clearly define what it seeks or under what conditions it would close the operation. Nor has it been clear who pushed for the entry into war, whether it was a decision Donald Trump o What weight did Binyamin Netanyahu have? in persuading him to launch an offensive presented as shared.
While the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz disrupts world trade and skyrockets the price of oilTrump and his top commanders continue to offer conflicting versions, they disagree and contradict each other on essential points, such as the authorship of the bombing of a girls’ school that left 175 dead, most of them minors, the deadlines of the conflict, or the promise to protect oil tanker traffic. Below, we review the most conflictive points of the story presented by the US Administration:
From the beginning, the White House has oscillated between presenting the offensive as a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear threat and force a political surrender of the regime. Trump began by promising to “send help” to the Iranian people who were demonstrating in the streets against the Ayatollah’s repression, but then justified the war by saying that he had the “feeling” that Iran was preparing to attack the United States. Shortly after, the White House press secretary, Caroline Leavittcorrected that version and maintained that it was a sensation “based on facts.”
But Trump toughened his tone and proclaimed: “There will be no agreement with Iran except the unconditional surrender”reinforcing the idea of regime change and raising hopes of the Iranian opponents. Again Leavittas well as the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, They denied that a verbal capitulation was enough and left it to the president to decide when Iran would stop being “a credible and direct threat”. The ambiguity of the formulation remains unresolved.
The duration of war It has changed almost every day, in step with the front, the markets and the internal political cost. Trump began by announcing that the bombings would continue “for the entire week or as long as necessary.” He then stated that they would continue “until all our objectives are met” and later spoke of an initial forecast of ““four or five weeks”.
Hegseth expanded the range even further: “You can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three.” When pressure increased over the oil price, declines and polls, Trump veered again and spoke of a “short excursion”assured that the war was “very complete, more or less” and promised that it would end “soon, very soon.” However, he almost immediately hardened the message again: “We haven’t won enough” and “we’re not done yet.”
The war opened with disputed responsibilities from the first big mistake: the attack on the girls’ school in Minab. At first conflicting versions circulated about who had hit the building. The missile identified was a Tomahawk, a weapon used by the USthat although they export to a limited number of countries, none of them seem involved in this conflict.
Trump’s first reaction was to attribute it to Tehran. “In my opinion, from what I have seen, that was done by Iran,” he said, suggesting that the regime could have Tomahawks, something that was proven incorrect. He later downgraded that accusation, admitting, “I just don’t know enough about that,” although he added that he would accept the outcome of the investigation.
In parallel, the White House avoided fully endorsing that first version. Leavitt limited himself to stating that “the investigation is ongoing” and, in fact, over the days, the preliminary explanation changed: the attack would have been United States due to an identification error, due to the use of outdated coordinates of a building that had previously been part of an Iranian base and that already functioned as a school. 175 people diedmostly girls.
For days, one of the big questions was who pushed whom into war: whether Washington dragged Israel or it was the other way around. The most complete account available so far suggests that Netanyahu played a key role in convincing Trump to go for the military response, persuading him that the diplomatic route was exhausted, thus taking a step that no president before him wanted. “Towards the end of the negotiation, I realized that these guys were not going to reach an agreement. I told them: ‘Let’s do it and that’s it,'” the president summarized.
The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, reinforced that idea by stating that with Iran “it is difficult to negotiate”, while Steve Witkoff revealed the extent to which Washington expected a surrender by asking why Tehran he had not “capitulated.”
Another of the most visible lurches has come with the Strait of Hormuz, precisely because its blockage has skyrocketed the price of oil by stopping a passage through which it normally circulates near a fifth of the world’s crude oil. With traffic nearly paralyzed, pressure on the White House grew at the same pace as the markets.
Trump responded by promising that USA I would act. “When the time comes, the US Navy and its partners will escort the tankers through the strait, if necessary,” he said. But that promise immediately clashed with the corrections of his own Administration.
He secretary of energy, Chris Wrightdowngraded the message and admitted that “it can’t happen now.” ““We’re just not ready.”he pointed out. He explained that the military means are focused on “destroying” Iran’s offensive capacitynot in protecting ships. Confusion increased when Wright posted that the Navy had already escorted a tanker and then deleted the message. The White House later confirmed that was not true. The Pentagon limited itself to acknowledging that they are studying “a series of options.”
Subscribe to continue reading
