By
The morning after Donald Trump delivered a national address on the U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear targets, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a rare Pentagon press conference in which he talked at some length about how impressed he was with the president. He also, however, managed to weave in some comments about the mission.
“Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran’s nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump,” Hegseth declared. “The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back.”
But that’s not quite what “deterrence” means. In a national security context, the whole point of deterrence is to instill fear of consequences. When the U.S. is deterring foreign foes, it’s generally the result of the fear of a possible military offensive.
When the U.S. actually engages in military strikes, that doesn’t instill doubt or fear, so much as it does the one thing the foe hoped to avoid. It’s the difference between someone saying, “Do what I want or I’ll hit you in the face” and someone actually hitting you in the face.
At the same briefing, however, a reporter asked the Pentagon chief, “[A]s a Global War on Terrorism veteran, what do you say to veterans who may be concerned the U.S. is getting into another open-ended war in the Middle East over weapons of mass destruction?”
“I would just say,” Hegseth responded, “as the president has directed and made clear, this is most certainly not open-ended.”
Taken at face value, the comments might’ve seemed reassuring. With the open-ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still fresh in the minds of many (if not in the minds of the Trump administration), that the defense secretary wants Americans to know the U.S. offensive against Iran is “most certainly not open-ended” suggests the administration has a different and more limited kind of operation mind.
The problem, however, is that Hegseth’s rhetoric is literally unbelievable.
The president ordered a military strike against a Middle Eastern foe. Iran vowed to retaliate — in fact, on Monday, Iran targeted U.S. forces in Qatar — and officials in Tehran might very well take additional steps. This could lead to a U.S. response, followed by possible Iranian responses, and so on.
Indeed, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was explicit on this point, saying on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the administration hasn’t planned any additional military operations in Iran, though he quickly added, “unless — unless — they mess around and they attack Americans or American interests.”
The nation’s chief diplomat made similar comments during a Fox News interview, arguing that if Iran retaliates against our attack with an attack of its own, it would be “the worst mistake they’ve ever made.” Rubio added, “We’re not looking for war in Iran, but if they attack us then I think we have capabilities they haven’t even seen yet.”
Whether Monday's strikes in Qatar are enough to trigger a Trump administration response is not yet clear. But the bottom line remains the same: There’s no clear end goal to the U.S. mission; there’s no articulated strategy to any of this; there’s no congressional oversight to speak of; there’s no reason to assume the White House has prepared for the consequences of Trump’s decision; and there’s a burgeoning threat of tit-for-tat military strikes between the U.S. and Iran.
Thank goodness this is “most certainly not open-ended.”
This post has been updated to reflect the Iranian strikes in Qatar.