President Trump used his State of the Union address to lay out a series of reasons why military action against Iran might be necessary, touching on everything from alleged nuclear ambitions to the regime’s history of attacks and violent suppression at home, as per The Hill. This speech certainly amplified the administration’s warnings, aiming to justify America’s significant military buildup in the region. However, it looks like President Trump might be stepping on his own message, especially with his nuclear warnings.
It’s a bit confusing because just last summer, Trump insisted that U.S. bombings of Iranian nuclear facilities had completely obliterated the country’s capacity to build a nuclear bomb. Now, special envoy Steve Witkoff is out here claiming Iran is only a week away from developing weapons-grade enriched uranium.
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, pointed out that Trump has actually set an “impossible standard” for himself. Parsi noted that not a single American was killed in the recent operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and any action in Iran will inevitably be compared to that success. He mentioned that in the Venezuela case, Trump could at least make an argument, however questionable, about fentanyl.
With Iran, especially after claiming the nuclear program was already obliterated, there’s no such clear-cut argument for military action
Even some of Trump’s supporters feel he could be making a stronger case for urgent action. Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, believes there’s a lot of justification for action but isn’t sure Trump is verbalizing all of it effectively. He thinks the president could do a better job explaining all the reasons for a potential strike if it becomes necessary.
Meanwhile, senior Senate Democrats, after a closed-door briefing on war plans, are urging the administration to clearly make its case to the American public. Despite these mixed messages, there’s actually bipartisan agreement that Iran poses a significant long-term threat to the U.S. and its allies. It was one of the few moments during the State of the Union where some Democrats stood and applauded Trump’s statement that he would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
In fact, Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has reportedly warned President Trump that even a small or medium strike on Iran could lead to a high potential for American casualties and a depletion of U.S. weapons stockpiles. Parsi also highlighted that Iran has signaled it would engage in a larger-scale retaliation against the U.S. if attacked, far beyond their limited response to previous American and Israeli strikes.
He believes Iran thinks it has a better chance with military confrontation than diplomacy, not necessarily to win, but to inflict enough damage that Trump would back off.
Published: Feb 26, 2026 10:30 am