Trump's menu of Iran war excuses unconvincing even to his own voter base: analysis

The reasons given by Donald Trump's administration as justification for the start of war with Iran are all unconvincing, according to a political analyst.

While the flurry of excuses may play well with supporters of war with Iran, those who do not support the war may be left wondering why it really began. Writing in The Mirror, Christopher Bucktin says the administration has offered up too many excuses over why the war began.

He wrote, "Since the first strikes were launched, the White House and senior officials have offered a shifting catalogue of justifications.

"None of them, including Trump himself, appears to be singing from the same hymn sheet. At times, it is not entirely clear whether there is a hymn sheet at all or if everyone simply arrived with their own playlist.

"Initially, the focus was on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the need to neutralize what was described as an existential threat to regional stability. Then came the other explanations.

"There were warnings that Iran might strike first. There were references to protecting Israel and US interests. There were claims about deterring Tehran’s proxy networks and restoring American credibility in the Middle East."

Bucktin went on to suggest the assassination claim peddled by Pete Hegseth is going to resonate with those who want retaliatory strikes on Iran.

He added, "The remark may resonate with supporters who view geopolitics through the language of strength and retaliation - although polling since the war began suggests even some of those supporters in the United States are beginning to ask questions. Chief among them: Why did this war actually begin?"

"Each new appearance from officials introduces another rationale — nuclear risk, regional security, deterrence, leadership decapitation, retaliation for past plots. None of them is implausible on its own. Together they create a justification so broad it begins to resemble a menu rather than a strategy.

"The confusion extends to the war’s objective. At various points, officials have described the campaign as a limited strike, an effort to degrade Iran’s military capacity or a broader attempt to reshape the regional balance of power."