Trump looks for a scapegoat as Iran war drags on, questions Hegseth and Caine

U.S. President Donald Trump is considering resuming military strikes against Iran immediately after Tuesday's congressional midterm elections, while privately questioning the performance of two of his most senior defense advisers as he searches for someone to blame for the prolonged war and its political consequences. The Atlantic reported Sunday that Trump has begun asking allies about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have played central roles in directing the campaign against Iran.

Trump also threatened Iran with further military action during a campaign rally in Iowa on Sunday night. The president said he had held back from further attacks because he wanted to avoid additional casualties. "I want to try and save all those lives if I can," he told supporters, warning that at some point the United States would have to "give them the hammer." According to The Atlantic, whose reporting was based partly on conversations with two outside advisers close to Trump and administration officials, the president is increasingly frustrated that the war has continued for more than eight months despite assurances from his advisers that it would be short, decisive and over well before the midterm elections.

With Republicans facing the possibility of losing control of the House of Representatives and potentially the Senate, Trump has come to believe that the conflict with Iran is at least partly responsible for his political difficulties. Much of the criticism has focused on Hegseth, whom some people close to the president accuse of presenting an excessively optimistic assessment of the war to maintain Trump's approval. "Hegseth is good at telling the president what he wants to hear," one outside adviser told The Atlantic.

Sources close to Trump suggested that the defense secretary has failed to fully convey the difficulties facing U.S. forces. The Pentagon strongly rejected those allegations. Spokesperson Sean Parnell said Hegseth consistently provides the president and senior White House officials with a complete picture of military operations and dismissed suggestions otherwise as false. The White House also defended both officials, with spokesperson Anna Kelly saying Trump and his team retain full confidence in Hegseth and Caine and that both are working to carry out the president's objectives.

Against this backdrop of growing tensions within the defense establishment, Hegseth and Caine visited the White House last week to present Trump and Vice President JD Vance with a range of military options intended to create the conditions for the president to declare victory. Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, also visited the White House last week.

According to current and former U.S. defense officials who spoke to The Atlantic, the options include a limited strike lasting several hours, a military operation lasting several days or a broader campaign extending over several weeks. Trump could also maintain the American naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz while continuing to threaten renewed strikes, or decide against any further escalation. Supporters of renewed military action believe the economic pressure on Tehran is beginning to work and that additional strikes could force the Iranian government back to the negotiating table.

One proposal involves an extended campaign against Iranian air defenses and infrastructure, similar to the initial phase of the war before U.S. attacks shifted toward Iranian forces operating around the Strait of Hormuz. According to the report, Washington would be expected to argue that infrastructure targeted in such an operation serves both military and civilian purposes. Such attacks, however, could endanger civilians and potentially violate international humanitarian law.

Another proposal calls for a campaign lasting several days against Iran's nuclear program. Officials within the Trump administration expect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to support renewed attacks, given his backing for the war and his belief that continued confrontation with Iran could help him retain political power. The Atlantic noted, however, that Netanyahu's political future remains uncertain following Israel's elections last week.

Even a large-scale offensive would not necessarily force Tehran to surrender. The Iranian government could survive another round of strikes and portray its continued survival as a victory. According to the magazine, the limited American strikes carried out since the extended military campaign that began in late February have failed to secure Iranian concessions. Instead, they have hardened Tehran's position and prompted retaliatory attacks against American assets and U.S. allies in the region.

A renewed campaign would also further deplete American munitions stockpiles. Michael Cohen, a researcher at the Washington-based Stimson Center, warned that another unsuccessful round of attacks could expose the limitations of American military power. If Tehran continues to reject Washington's demands despite additional strikes, he argued, the administration would have to confront the question of whether to continue escalating the conflict, even after demonstrating that military pressure alone had failed to achieve its objectives.

Alongside the military preparations, diplomatic efforts to bring Iran back to negotiations are continuing. According to The Atlantic, Vance sent a letter last Sunday to Mohsen Rezaei, a senior Iranian security official, proposing the resumption of direct talks between Washington and Tehran. The vice president emphasized that Iran's nuclear program would have to be addressed from the beginning of any negotiations, but did not specify what concessions or incentives the United States might offer in return.

International mediators who delivered the letter sought to arrange a meeting later this week, around the time Trump is expected to decide whether to resume military operations. However, the prospect of renewed negotiations has also generated skepticism within the administration, after previous attempts to use military pressure to secure an agreement failed to produce the desired results. The military proposals also offer no clear solution to the threats posed by Iran's regional allies and proxy groups, particularly the Houthis in Yemen, who have recently attacked targets in Saudi Arabia.

Eliminating the threat from Iranian-backed groups was among the objectives Trump outlined at the beginning of the war. The economic consequences are another source of concern, as renewed American strikes could drive oil prices higher and place additional pressure on the U.S. economy and Washington's allies. One administration official told The Atlantic that Trump's recent shift in his approach toward Ukraine was partly motivated by a desire to allow more Russian energy supplies to reach international markets, potentially limiting the impact of renewed fighting in the Middle East on global energy prices.

The plans have also drawn criticism in Congress. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, who was briefed on some of the military options, described them last week as "insane." He warned that the proposals could trigger devastating escalation and seriously undermine the United States' commitment to the rule of law. Three polygraph tests and a firing: Turmoil at the Pentagon As Trump considers his next steps against Iran, tensions within the Pentagon are intensifying following a series of dismissals of senior military officers ordered by Hegseth.

Last week, the defense secretary unexpectedly fired Army Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia, one of the most senior officers on the Joint Staff and its director of planning. According to officials working with Hegseth, Sylvia failed polygraph examinations conducted as part of an investigation into leaks to the media. The defense secretary had ordered him to undergo at least three such tests following reports that disclosed details of White House discussions and ammunition shortages resulting from the war in Iran.

Sylvia has not publicly responded to the allegations, and The Atlantic said it was unable to reach him for comment. Hegseth believes the Joint Staff, which reports to Caine, has a serious problem with unauthorized disclosures. According to the report, Caine did not strongly challenge that assessment, although he appeared to have been unaware of some of the circumstances surrounding Sylvia's dismissal. Initially, Caine's office issued a statement thanking Sylvia for 32 years of military service.

After receiving further information from the defense secretary's team, the office released a revised statement acknowledging that the original announcement had not accurately reflected the full circumstances of his departure. According to The Atlantic, Hegseth has sought to strengthen his standing with Trump by portraying himself as someone determined to protect the president against damaging leaks. Some Pentagon officials suspect Sylvia's dismissal was intended to weaken the influence of the Joint Staff at precisely the moment Trump is reassessing the performance of his advisers and the outcome of the war.

Hegseth has already dismissed or forced the departure of more than two dozen generals and admirals. The latest removal has fueled unease within the Pentagon, where senior officers are questioning who might be next and what message the defense secretary is attempting to send. The report describes Trump's frustration as having intensified in recent weeks, particularly as his political messaging has failed to improve the Republicans' standing ahead of the midterms.

Within the White House, concerns have grown that the party could lose its House majority and perhaps control of the Senate as well. Having previously declared victory in the war against Iran, Trump is now trying to understand why promises of a swift and decisive outcome have not materialized. The Atlantic portrays the president as looking for someone to hold responsible, with particular attention falling on those who assured him at the outset that the conflict would be quickly resolved.

Nevertheless, Republican losses in Tuesday's elections would not necessarily reduce the likelihood of renewed attacks. The magazine pointed to the 2006 U.S. midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress amid widespread public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. President George W. Bush subsequently blamed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the defeat and forced him from office. Yet just two months later, Bush ordered a major increase in American troop levels in Iraq, escalating the military campaign rather than bringing it to an end.

As of the report's publication, Trump had not ordered the resumption of strikes against Iran. According to people close to him, even if he decides to launch another offensive, he may keep that decision secret until the last possible moment. The central question now facing the president is whether the advisers who once promised him a quick victory can offer a new strategy capable of delivering a different outcome.