Hegseth's call for ‘peace' shows Trump thinks he can have it both ways despite his punishing Iran ‘Hammer' strike

It seemed cut and dry Saturday evening, as three sites central to Iran's nuclear program were pummeled by U.S. weaponry, that war in the Middle East had ensnared America once again and the prospect of another prolonged, costly struggle was likely.
But as the president and his top deputies laid out their own vision for the future, they described a one-and-done effort to set Iran's weapon development efforts back 'years' while claiming that the administration remained committed to avoiding a Bush-style invasion aimed at toppling the Iranian government.
Saturday's strike, they argued, could be the end of Iran's punishment from the United States — but only if Tehran toes the line.
Vice President J.D. Vance outlined the White House's political goal in an interview Sunday with Meet the Press on NBC: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.'
And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared of the U.S. president earlier Sunday at a press conference: 'He seeks peace, and Iran should take that path.'
But Iranian officials have already dismissed the idea of letting Saturday's action go unanswered.
Vowing retaliation, Iran's foreign minister also warned that peace talks were off the table after Saturday evening's direct involvement by the U.S. in an effort formerly solely involving the Israeli government aimed at dismantling Iran's nuclear weapons program.
'The events [of] this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' tweeted Abbas Aragchi, the Iranian foreign minister.
He added on Sunday: 'Let's wait for our response, first. And when the aggression is ended, we decide how to engage in diplomacy once again."
In the past, Iranian officials have largely backed down from escalation with the United States after a few military responses against bases that house U.S. forces in Iraq which caused minimal damage. The Trump administration appears to be hoping for a response in that vein once again as it postures threateningly against Tehran while claiming to have achieved its primary objectives against nuclear weapons advances.
On Saturday evening, the president delivered an address in the immediate wake of the strikes. He, like Hegseth on Sunday, raved about how awe-inspiring and successful the U.S. military operation had been at achieving its objectives, claiming: "Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.'
General Dan 'Razin'' Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, offered a more grounded assessment alongside Hegseth on Sunday, telling reporters (while standing next to the effusive Hegseth) that it was 'way too early' to determine whether Iran still had nuclear capabilities.
The reality for the administration is now obvious to all but those most caught up in the glory of American war fervor.
If the U.S. was successful at seriously setting back the program, the risk of continued retaliation across the Middle East remains a possibility, though supporters of the president's decision argue that Iran's options to cause serious damage were few and far between.
The strike was cheered by the U.K. government as well as the Atlantic Council, where experts likened the attack to the first Trump administration's killing of a top Revolutionary Guard official and predicted that Iran's response would be similarly muted.
But others strongly disagree, and civil war threatens to engulf the American right as more and more neoconservatives clash with those in the party tired of the GOP-begun 'endless war' dynamic of the 2000s and 2010s.
While the White House insists that this is not about regime change and de-escalation remains on the table, the hawkish wing of the president's party continues to publicly call for further devastating strikes on other Iranian targets, including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
The latter option would be the most certain to trigger unrestrained war between Washington and Tehran, which after Saturday seemed alarmingly possible for even many of Trump's own supporters.
The other question that remains unanswered: Is Iran's nuclear program truly destroyed?
'If it has been, then no further strikes will be required against sites related to that program, as the president seems to prefer,' wrote the Atlantic Council's Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative. 'But if it turns out the strikes were not completely effective, that Iran moved portions of its nuclear weapons program, or that it has secret nuclear sites, then it is unlikely this will be the end of these strikes as Trump has sought.'
The president continues to have multiple forces pulling him in the direction of further military engagement, including members of his own political coalition at home and the Israeli government, one of his administration's closest allies abroad. After Saturday, that list could also include an armed response from Iran itself.
With legislation representing a large part of his agenda slowly working its way through slim Republican majorities in Congress, Donald Trump has many reasons to avoid engaging America in a prolonged war. Not least of those reasons is the outcry of opposition from within his own party, still muted on Capitol Hill but deafening in the various corners of the 'extremely online' right, which makes up a key chunk of his most engaged supporters.
That faction has been in full meltdown mode for more than a week now as Israel's conflict with Iran was renewed by Tel Aviv and the president made clear that he was giving serious thought to joining it, spurred by the claim that Iran's nuclear weapons development had resumed.
Steve Bannon, chief strategist in Trump's first White House and leader of his own large following via his War Room podcast, had lunch with the president on Thursday — two and a half days before the attack commenced. Bannon, like others, continues to warn that the GOP president puts at risk his domestic policy agenda, with mass deportations at the center, by engaging the U.S. in a war.
In reality, the administration has declined to release any evidence to that notion of Iran resuming nuclear weapons development, or even confirm whether the supposed evidence in question comes from U.S. intelligence sources or Israel's government — or another third party.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined to do so again on Sunday.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Guardian

28 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Why Trump bombed Iran

The US has joined Israel in its attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. Michael Safi hears from reporter Hugo Lowell and world affairs correspondent Andrew Roth on what happens now

Telegraph

43 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Did Trump's strike pay off? New images show Iran's nuclear ambitions in ruins

US strikes on Iran may have set the country's nuclear programme back by several years, according to preliminary expert analysis. Donald Trump's claims that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'completely and totally obliterated' were likely to be an overstatement, serving and former US military officials said – but it is probable that all three facilities targeted suffered extensive damage. Under best-case assessments, Iran's capacity to enrich uranium has been severely degraded, if not destroyed. However, the country's existing stockpiles of uranium enriched to near weapons grade – enough to fuel 10 nuclear bombs – is thought to have survived. Understanding the extent to which the US has damaged Iran's nuclear programme is a vital in determining whether the strikes were a one-off or merely the opening salvo of a wider conflict US B-2 stealth bombers and cruise missiles struck Iran's three most important nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. If the strikes succeeded in destroying centrifuge halls at the facilities, they would prevent Iran from further enriching its uranium stockpiles to a purity of 90 per cent – something it has not done so far, according to UN inspectors. Satellite images of convoys leaving all three sites in recent days support Iran's claims that it moved its 400-kg stockpile – much of it previously held at Isfahan – to a secret underground location shortly before the strikes. Even if that were the case, however, the damage inflicted elsewhere would still make it difficult to turn the uranium into a bomb. Even if Iran had retained its fissile material, it would be 'like having fuel without a car,' said Ronen Solomon, an Israeli intelligence analyst. 'They have the uranium – but they can't do a lot with it, unless they have built something we don't know about on a small scale.' That is not beyond the realm of possibility. Iran succeeded in keeping its Fordow facility a secret for seven years before it was dramatically exposed, by Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy – then the leaders of the US, UK and France – at a joint press conference in 2009, following a joint intelligence operation. Fordow Of the three sites attacked, Fordow was by far the most important. The last-known site developed by the Iranians was deliberately designed to withstand aerial attack. An 'engineering marvel', in the words of one Western official, its main centrifuge halls lie buried up to half a mile inside a mountain. Not only does a layer of solid rock act as a natural shield impervious to most bombs, but additional artificial layers of reinforcement are also believed to have been added. The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker-busting bomb – 12 of which the US dropped on Fordow – is capable of penetrating 60 metres of standard concrete before exploding. But Iran is believed to have reinforced the centrifuge halls at Fordow with ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), which can withstand six times the amount of pressure of normal concrete – up to 30,000-lb per square inch. If Iran used the best quality UHPC, Fordow would have been significantly harder to destroy. Given that the site is underground, it remains difficult to assess the scale of the damage yet, with both Iranian and US officials saying they are still conducting evaluations. Natanz Above-ground facilities at Natanz, Iran's largest enrichment site, had already been damaged by extensive Israeli strikes, as shown by satellite imagery. The destruction of the site's electric substation may have knocked out power, potentially damaging centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog. Natanz also housed an underground centrifuge hall thought to have been the target of two US bunker-busters. The site was additionally struck by cruise missiles fired by a US submarine in the Arabian Sea. Isfahan Much of Iran's mostly highly enriched uranium is thought to have been stored at the nuclear research and production centre near the city of Isfahan, the ancient capital of Safavid Persia. International inspectors verified the fuel was there a fortnight ago, but satellite imagery suggests Iran may have moved it in recent days. Israel had previously struck laboratories and three other buildings at the facility. The US did not use bunker-busters on Isfahan – which is thought to be mostly above ground – and instead attacked with cruise missiles. The strikes are thought to have damaged six additional buildings, including a fuel rod production facility. Overall assessment A fuller picture of overall damage may emerge in the coming days, with experts urging caution about attaching too much credibility to the US president's more optimistic pronouncements or to Iran's defiant claims that its nuclear capacity remains largely intact. Clionadh Raleigh, head of the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a conflict-monitoring group, warned that although the strikes might alter the timeline of Iran's nuclear programme, they would do little to alter its ultimate trajectory. 'The regime's broader power and intentions are likely to remain intact,' said Ms Raleigh. 'Iran's military and intelligence systems are designed and built to survive. The structure is deeply layered and resistant to collapse. Even if key infrastructure is destroyed, the system adapts – and in some cases, becomes more dangerous in the process. 'There's no evidence that the strikes will permanently end Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities. What they may do is shift the timeline.' Others were less cautious. Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official who served in the first Trump administration, told the New York Times that the US strikes will 'likely set back the Iranian nuclear programme two to five years' – an assessment shared by Jason Brodsky of United Against a Nuclear Iran, a US-based pressure group. The setback stems not only from the strikes themselves. Repairing the damage will be far harder following the assassination of more than a dozen nuclear scientists in the past 10 days, Israeli officials said. 'Several of the eliminated scientists had spent decades advancing nuclear weapons, constituting a significant part of the Iranian regime's plans to annihilate the State of Israel,' one official said. 'These scientists had diverse professional expertise and extensive experience.'

Sky News

an hour ago

• Sky News

An Iranian attack on US military bases could draw the UK into the conflict

When I got to Chequers on Sunday morning the prime minister had clearly been up for most of the night and hitting the phones all morning with calls to fellow leaders in Europe and the Middle East as he and others scrambled to try to contain a very dangerous situation. His primary message on Sunday was to try to reassure the public that the UK government was working to stabilise the region as best it could and press for a return to diplomacy. But what struck me in our short interview was not what he did say but what he didn't - what he couldn't - say about the US strikes. It was clear from his swerve on the question of whether the UK supported the strikes that the prime minister neither wanted to endorse US strikes nor overtly criticise President Trump. Instead, his was a form of words - repeated later in a joint statement of the E3 (the UK, Germany and France) to acknowledge the US strikes and reiterate where they can agree: the need to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon. He also didn't want to engage in the very obvious observation that President Trump simply isn't listening to Sir Keir Starmer or other allies, who had been very publicly pressing for de-escalation all week, from the G7 summit in Canada to this weekend as European countries convened talks in Geneva with Iran. 4:00 It was only five days ago that the prime minister told me he didn't think a US attack was imminent when I asked him what was going on following President Trump's abrupt decision to quit the G7 early and convene his security council at the White House. When I asked him if he felt foolish or frustrated that Trump had done that and didn't seem to be listening, he told me it was a "fast moving situation" with a "huge amount of discussions in the days since the G7" and said he was intensely pressing his consistent position of de-escalation. What else really could he say? He has calculated that criticising Trump goes against UK interests and has no other option but to press for a diplomatic solution and work with other leaders to achieve that aim. 1:15 Before these strikes, Tehran was clear it would not enter negotiations until Israel stopped firing missiles into Iran - something Israel is still saying on Sunday evening it is not prepared to do. The US has been briefing that one of the reasons it took action was because it did not think the Iranians were taking the talks convened by the Europeans in Geneva seriously enough. It is hard now to see how these strikes will not serve but to deepen the conflict in the Middle East and the mood in government is bleak. Iran will probably conclude that continuing to strike only Israel in light of the US attacks - the first airstrikes ever by the US on Iran - is a response that will make the regime seem weak. 2:38 But escalation could draw the UK into a wider conflict it does not want. If Iran struck US assets, it could trigger article five of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) and draw the UK into military action. If Iran chose to attack the US via proxies, then UK bases and assets could be under threat. The prime minister was at pains to stress on Sunday that the UK had not been involved in these strikes. Meanwhile, the UK-controlled airbase on Diego Garcia was not used to launch the US attacks, with B-2 bombers deployed from Guam instead. There was no request to use the Diego Garcia base, the president moving unilaterally, underlining his disinterest in what the UK has to say. The world is waiting nervously to see how Iran might respond, as the PM moves more military assets to the region while simultaneously hitting the phones.