When Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine stood side by side at their March 4 briefing on the Iran war, they each offered what they called the mission’s clear, decisive objectives. They listed three apiece. They were not the same three.
“Obliterate Iran’s missiles and drones and facilities that produce them, annihilate its navy and critical security infrastructure, and sever their pathway to nuclear weapons,” Hegseth said during the briefing. “Iran will never possess a nuclear bomb. Not on our watch, not ever.”
Minutes later, Caine provided a different trio of objectives.
“First, we are targeting and eliminating Iran’s ballistic missile systems to prevent them from threatening the U.S. forces, partners and interests in the region,” he said. “Second, we are destroying the Iranian navy. ... Third, we’re ensuring Iran cannot rapidly rebuild or reconstitute its combat capability or combat power.” It contained no mention of nuclear weapons.
That exchange has come to epitomize what has become a recurring feature of the conflict: Almost three weeks into the war, political and military officials have yet to coalesce around a single, coherent account of what military success looks like, what achieving it would require or how the war ends.
Read Julia Jester’s analysis here.
