President Donald Trump and administration officials have been all over the map with explanations for why we began military operations against Iran. Here is the chronological rundown of what each figure has said, based on my search results. Note that several of these justifications have been directly contradicted by other administration officials or by intelligence briefings to Congress.

Before the strikes, February 26 to 27

JD Vance — In a Washington Post interview on February 27 (aboard Air Force Two), Vance said the strikes would serve as a deterrent to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon unless the issue was resolved diplomatically. He insisted there was “no chance” it would lead to a protracted Middle Eastern war and described himself and Trump as “skeptics of foreign military interventions.” He said the administration preferred diplomacy, but it would depend on what Iran did. Behind the scenes, The New York Times later reported that Vance argued in a February 18 Situation Room meeting that a limited strike would be a mistake, pushing instead to “go big and go fast” if the U.S. was going to attack.

Day 1 — Saturday, February 28

Donald Trump — Released an eight-minute prerecorded video on Truth Social in the early morning hours. Trump said the objective was to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” He laid out goals that included destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, annihilating its navy, ensuring it could never obtain a nuclear weapon, and ending its proxy networks. He also encouraged Iranians to rise up and topple the ruling regime. In a separate interview with The Washington Post that same day, Trump said his main concern was “freedom” for the Iranian people.

Anonymous senior U.S. official (background briefing, Feb. 28) — Claimed Trump authorized the strikes after receiving intelligence that Iran was planning to deploy ballistic missiles either preemptively or simultaneously with any American action. This was the initial “imminent preemptive threat” justification.

Mike Johnson — Issued a statement on February 28 saying Iran was “facing the severe consequences of its evil actions” and that Trump had “made every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions” in response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, terrorism, and murder of Americans and its own people.

Day 2 — Sunday, March 1

The “imminent preemptive strike” claim began to collapse. Pentagon officials acknowledged to congressional staff in a 90-minute briefing that Iran had no plans to strike U.S. forces or bases unless Israel attacked first—directly contradicting the Saturday claim. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he had seen “no intelligence” suggesting Iran was preparing a preemptive strike.

Trump — Released a second prerecorded video, vowing to avenge U.S. service member deaths and continuing to emphasize the nuclear threat and the need to destroy Iran’s military capabilities.

Day 3 — Monday, March 2

This is the day the rationale shifted most dramatically, with multiple officials offering distinct justifications.

Trump — Set forth four objectives in his first live public remarks (at a Medal of Honor ceremony): destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, “annihilating” its navy, preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and ensuring Iran could no longer arm and fund proxy groups. He described this as the “last best chance to strike” and said Iran’s regime had been negotiating in bad faith. He reiterated that diplomatic attempts had failed and that Iran’s ballistic missile program posed a colossal threat to America and U.S. forces overseas. He projected the operation would last four to five weeks.

Marco Rubio — Offered what many outlets described as a new justification before briefing Congress. Rubio said Washington knew Israel was going to attack Iran and that Tehran would retaliate against U.S. interests, so U.S. forces struck preemptively to minimize American casualties. He described the “imminent threat” not as a standalone Iranian plan to attack the U.S. but as the certainty that Iran would hit American assets once any attack began. Rubio said Iran’s retaliatory orders had been delegated down to field commanders and were “automatic.” He also argued that the operation “needed to happen” regardless because Iran was amassing missiles and drones that would have protected its nuclear program and that, within a year to 18 months, Iran would have crossed a “line of immunity” where its conventional arsenal would make any strike too costly. He added that while regime change was not an official goal, the U.S. would welcome it and “would not be heartbroken” if the Iranian people could overthrow their government.

Mike Johnson — After the briefing, Johnson echoed Rubio’s explanation, calling it a “defensive operation” because Israel was determined to act “with or without American support.” He argued that if the U.S. had waited, the consequences—including Iranian missile barrages against U.S. personnel—would have been “staggering.” He said Trump faced a “very difficult decision” and acted to prevent far greater losses.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (at the Pentagon) — Said the operation was a response to Iran’s decades of targeting U.S. military and interests and that the goals were to destroy Iran’s missile threat, destroy its navy, and prevent nuclear weapons. He insisted this was “not Iraq” and would not be open ended. He notably said it was “not a so-called regime change war, but the regime sure did change.”

JD Vance — Broke his post-strike public silence on Fox News’ “Jesse Watters Primetime” that evening. He insisted the war was different from Iraq and Afghanistan because Trump “has clearly defined what he wants to accomplish.” He said Trump’s ultimate goal was to secure a long-term commitment from Iran never to build a nuclear weapon. He also described the aim as wanting “a radical change in the mentality of the Iranian regime.” Sources close to Vance simultaneously tried to spin the New York Times report, claiming he had been “personally against the strikes” but argued that if it happened, the operation should go big.

Day 4 — Tuesday, March 3

Trump — Directly contradicted Rubio’s Monday explanation, telling ABC News that Israel did not force his hand and that he may have forced Israel’s. He said he believed Iran “was going to attack first” based on how negotiations were going. This reintroduced the original “imminent Iranian threat” justification that the Pentagon had already undercut.

Summary of the shifting rationales

As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D – New York) put it: “We heard this attack was defensive in nature. Then Rubio said it was preemptive. Which one is it? Regime change? Nuclear weapons? Missiles? An imminent threat to the homeland? Or a preemptive strike to stop future attacks on the region?” CNN’s analysis on March 3 noted that Trump’s rationale has whipsawed from protecting Iranian demonstrators, to defending against nuclear and missile threats, to eliminating a terrorism-sponsoring regime, to encouraging the Iranian people to take control of their country—even as officials insist the war is not about regime change. As of the morning of Tuesday, March 3, The Washington Post is reporting that the administration has offered varying justifications ranging from regime change to preemption to eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missiles.

Now that the deed is done, we all should hope for a speedy conclusion with the least possible loss of life. If the conflict ends within a week or so with no more loss of life on our side, the politics are such that the effort will be deemed a success. If it goes much longer, it will be deemed a huge mistake. My advice to Democrats and Republicans is that they both should hope for the best and avoid making bold claims before more is known.