President Donald Trump defended US military action against Iran early Saturday, describing the strikes as necessary to counter what he called “imminent threats” from Tehran. The attacks involved joint US and Israeli forces, targeting unspecified locations across the Islamic Republic.
In an eight-minute video message posted on social media shortly after the strikes began, Trump said Iran had “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions” and accused Tehran of attempting to rebuild its nuclear program and develop long-range missiles capable of reaching the United States. The president also encouraged Iranians to rise against their government.
However, experts have questioned the basis for Trump’s justification. Mona Yacoubian, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that intelligence assessments indicate Iran’s nuclear program is “still not close to weaponizing” and that Tehran may be years away from developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yacoubian added that the president’s call for regime change suggested the strikes were motivated more by political ambitions than an immediate security threat.
- Progress in Negotiations –
Just a day before the attacks, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who has been mediating talks between Tehran and Washington, said Iran agreed to halt the stockpiling of nuclear material needed to produce a weapon. Albusaidi described the concession as a major step toward neutralizing the nuclear threat, stating, “If you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way you can actually create a bomb.”
Defense assessments have also cast doubt on Trump’s claims about missile threats. The 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency report indicated that Iran did not possess intercontinental ballistic missiles and could take until 2035 to develop 60 such weapons. Currently, Tehran’s missile arsenal consists of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with maximum ranges of roughly 1,850 miles (3,000 kilometers), according to the US Congressional Research Service.
Beyond nuclear and missile concerns, Trump cited historical and regional tensions, including the 1979 US embassy takeover in Tehran, attacks by Iranian proxy groups on US forces, and the Iranian government’s crackdown on protesters. Analysts, however, point out that proxy attacks on American forces were not ongoing and that the Huthi ceasefire in Yemen had halted attacks on shipping. Additionally, Trump previously withheld military action during Iran’s crackdown on dissent last month.
The latest strikes underscore continued volatility in US-Iran relations and raise questions about the strategic rationale for military escalation amid ongoing negotiations and regional diplomacy.
