Trump's Reasons for Attacking Iran Don't Add Up

You've probably heard Trump officials claim Iran was about to get nukes (again). But have you heard the rationale that Tehran actually started a war against the U.S. 50 years ago?

Don Moynihan is the J. Ira and Nicki Harris Family Professor of Public Policy at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy Subscribe to his Substack, Can We Still Govern?

President Donald J. Trump oversees Operation Epic Fury at Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, FL, March 1, 2026. | White House photo by Daniel Torok via Flickr

Why is American attacking Iran? It helps to have a coherent reason, to justify to the American public the costs in money and blood, to allies about the potential long-term risks, and to Iranians about the future of their country.

After 9/11, there was broad support for invading Afghanistan because the country hosted the attack’s mastermind. In 2003, there was less support for what turned out to be the false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They didn’t, but Saddam stuck a belligerent tone and kicked weapons inspectors out. In 2026, Iran was at the negotiating table and we invaded … for reasons.

A couple of days before the attack Daniel C. Kurtzer, a Professor of Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton summed up the lack of clarity:

The bottom line is we don’t really know why the U.S. appears to be preparing for war with Iran. Trump has not yet briefed Congress or spoken to the American people about a possible military action that could inflame regional tensions and spark a bloody conflict.

Clarity has not emerged since the bombs started dropping. Democratic Senator Mark Warner was briefed by the White House House as senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said: “What was the imminent threat to America? I don’t know the answer.”

So lets review the various reasons the Trump administration and its supporters have articulated for a likely illegal war they are pursuing without Congressional permission.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

1. Iran Was Working on Nuclear Weapons

Trump discussed the potential for Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in his state of the union address. How close was Iran? We don’t know. Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff said Iran was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb making material.” Trump himself claimed Iran was just “a few weeks away” from having a nuclear weapons.

But last June the Trump administration said it had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities, and cited Israeli officials who said the nuclear program was set back by “years.” How do you go from years to weeks in months?

There is also the point that Trump inherited a credible and carefully developed agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons but tore up that agreement because it was negotiated by Obama. Recreating that agreement might have been on the table, but we will never know.

At the State of the Union, Trump also said that Iran was “working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.” But this was exaggerated and not an imminent threat. According to the New York Times:

Three American officials with access to current intelligence about Iran’s missile programs said that Mr. Trump exaggerated the immediacy of the threat posed to the United States. One official said some intelligence analysts were concerned that top aides have inflated the threats or that intelligence was being selectively presented or distorted as it was sent upward.

White House aides exaggerating threats to spur a war they already wanted has a very 2003 feel to it. Say what you will about the Bush administration, but when they sold a Middle-Eastern war, they took some pride in selling the lie.

2. Iran Interfered in U.S. Elections!

Trump has complained that Iran interfered in U.S. elections. Well, yes they did, but to no effect. And so did China and Russia, and we are not attacking them. Indeed, we are attacking anyone who implies that Russia tried to influence U.S. elections.

A bit more backstory. Stanford academic researchers and government investigators who identified the role of Iran’s election interference in 2020, which included social media manipulation, were pilloried by the Twitter Files brigade as censors, hauled before Congress, and sued by Stephen Miller’s American First Legal. CISA, the part of the federal government that monitored election interference, was gutted by the Trump administration and the Stanford Internet Observatory was shut down.

I’m inclined to believe if election interference was enough of a reason to attack a foreign country, the administration and its allies would not be punishing people who identified election interference as a problem.

Kate Starbird, who was one of the researchers targeted, summed it up this way:

The real story is that foreign governments try to interfere with elections in the U.S. all the time. In 2020 and 2024, the U.S. had private and public infrastructure in place to catch them, call them out, and mitigate the damage. Now, those mechanisms are gone, intentionally undermined and dismantled by the Trump administration.

3. Iran Actually Started the War

OK, I don’t really understand this either. The U.S .clearly started the conflict, along with Israel, start the conflict by sending warships to the region and then bombing the shit out of Iran.

But what if, and bear with me here, the words “war” or “conflict” could mean whatever you wanted? With this linguistic freedom, we can say that Iran started the war by being an antagonist of the US, and having some low-level conflict with it. Here is what Hegseth said:

The United States did not start this conflict, but we will finish it. If you kill or threaten Americans anywhere in the world—as Iran has—then we will hunt you down, and we will kill you.

Another version, articulated by Republican House Committee is that Iran started a “forever war” with the 1979 revolution (don’t ask about U.S. engagement in Iran before 1979!)

It this sounds sort of nuts, be assured that for some Americans, the Iranian revolution, including its kidnapping of American hostages, felt like a declaration of war. For example, The Free Press, the best indicator of the editorial preferences of Bari Weiss, who runs CBS News, is resolutely supportive of the attack, presenting the it as “the end” of “our 50-year war with Iran.”

If you did not know the U.S. was in a 50 year war with Iran, no-one is judging you. You had a lot of other wars to keep track of.

4. Iran Was about to Attack the U.S.

According to Trump mouthpiece and CNN commentator Scott Jennings, Iran was actually just about to attack the U.S. We stopped them in the nick of time. While the U.S. had warships at its door, Iran had planned a preemptive strike. I wonder if the officials Jennings refers to were the same administration officials that were saying that credible intelligence said that Iran would have nuclear weapons next week, or that it would be soon firing missiles at the United States.

5. Regime Change

In announcing his attack, Trump said: “To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.” This would be good news for the people of Iran, who have been plainly unhappy with their brutal rulers. But they also have reason for caution.

Trump also offered immunity for members of the regime who lay down their arms, but its not really his immunity to offer if the people of Iran are to determine their future. In a social media post, Trump said that he hoped that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other security forces would just merge with the people they have been killing, which seems a tad unrealistic:

Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves,” the president added. “That process should soon be starting in that, not only the death of Khamenei but the Country has been, in only one day, very much destroyed and, even, obliterated.

After Trump previously encouraged protestors to rise up, tens of thousands were murdered by the regime. And if they look at Venezuela, or even in America, Iranians might see a Trump administration that does not see its mission as encouraging democracy. In Venezuela, a corrupt but pliable regime is preferred to the opposition who won the last election.

The Iranian hardliners might assume that Trump will not put boots on the ground, and they can hold onto power by offering concessions about external military and terrorism threats. Once the crisis has passed, they may reassert their brutal control over the Iranian people. Trump has already agreed to talk to the new leadership.

Beyond the Iranian people, advocates of regime change also see it as generating a new age of peace in the Middle East. See, for example, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham:

I fervently pray that the long-suffering people of Iran will have their oppression ended soon. I also fervently pray that we’re on the verge of a new dawn in the Middle East, with historic opportunity for lasting peace and prosperity. As to our allies in Israel, President Trump and all under his command, your bravery has set in motion the end of evil and darkness, and the beginning of the light. Well done.

This is, to put it kindly, wishcasting that sounds very much like the neoconservative rationales for war in Iraq. Once Iraq is toppled, democracy would blossom and the region would stabilize. It seems like we are always just one expensive and bloody war away from stabilizing the Middle East! No downsides to the U.S.! Did I mention 22 people were killed in Pakistan when they tried storm the U.S. embassy?

In 2003, the wishcasting was accompanied with some efforts of nation building, poorly planned. But it appears that no such effort exists now. When Graham was challenged on Meet the Press on Trump’s plan for Iranians, he snapped:

No, its not his job or my job to do this. How many times do I have to tell you? Our job is to make sure Iran is no longer the largest state sponsor of terrorism, to help the people to reconstruct a new government. No boots on the ground. You know the sign [that says] “you break it, you own it”? I don’t buy that one bit.¹

6. Miscellaneous

Speaker Mike Johnson articulated some of the above reasons but also said that he was briefed that “that military action may become necessary to protect American troops and American citizens in Iran.” What? America is bombing Iran to protect American citizens in Iran?

What Happens When You Don’t Have a Clear Rationale

None of these feel like legitimate reasons, and the multiplicity of the reasons makes things worse. To be fair, its not unreasonable to have multiple goals with a military engagement, but Trump’s tendency to exaggerate and undercut his rationales with contradictory statements creates a sense of incoherence. And the fact that Trump did not present his case to Congress further weakens the legitimacy of his efforts.

The reality is that this is a war of choice. Trump wanted to pursue it, and Middle Eastern allies who are sick of Iran’s funding of terrorists encouraged or went along with the attack. According to reports, both Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s regional foes, urged Trump to attack. In part, this is because Iran is in a weakened state — already attacked by Israel, losing allies like Syria, and with its terrorist arms decimated — not because it is an imminent risk.

There might be a bunch of other, less articulated reasons, such as oil extraction (like Venezuela) and investment opportunities.

“We think Iran is a bad actor without an immediate threat to the U.S.” or “our regional allies really wanted this” are not especially compelling reasons for action. This has a couple of consequences.

First, there is not public buy-in for the war. It is worth remembering that the pattern of Middle Eastern wars is that they start as popular, and then become calamitous as time goes on. This one starts as unpopular because there is no compelling justification to rally around the flag.

Just 1 in 3 of those polled on the say of the strikes support the attack according to G. Elliott Morris. This is actually an improvement from previous polls. For example, two weeks ago, when just 1 in 5 supported a U.S. attack. More Republicans backing their President, but most Americans are unconvinced.

For Iranians on the ground, they now have to wonder, if the Trump administration has their best interests at heart. His track record, and mixed messages, make Trump unable to provide a credible commitment.

---

1 Here, Graham appears to be referring to Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule that he articulated to Bush: “If you break it, you’ve bought it.” The Trump rule, it would appear is, you break it, someone else owns the mess.