Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared before the press at the Pentagon on Thursday – and what followed was less a military briefing than a rhetorical offensive. With General Dan Caine at his side, Hegseth praised the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities as precise, destructive, and historically significant – but how much substance lies behind his words remains unclear. Detailed assessments of the actual setback to Tehran’s nuclear program? Nowhere to be found. “We are talking about one of the greatest, most professional, and most confirming operations in the history of the Pentagon,” President Trump wrote shortly after the appearance on Truth Social – accompanied by a call to apologize to the U.S. military and fire all members of the media involved in the alleged “witch hunt.”
But the tone in the room was far from triumphant. While Hegseth emphasized the planning, target selection, and logistical precision of the strikes, he consistently avoided any quantitative assessment. The much-cited intelligence report suggesting that Iran’s nuclear program had only been delayed by “a few months” was merely “preliminary” and “incomplete,” Hegseth said. The report itself noted that its reliability was low due to missing information – which is why the media’s fixation on it was “breathtakingly one-sided,” he claimed. Particularly striking: Hegseth also directed his criticism at his former Fox News colleague Jennifer Griffin, calling her “the worst” – someone who deliberately misrepresents what the president says. Griffin had previously asked whether there was any evidence that enriched uranium had even been stored in the bunker that was bombed. Satellite images showed that more than a dozen trucks had left the facility in the days leading up to the strike – possibly carrying sensitive material. Hegseth responded evasively: “Of course, we’re monitoring every aspect. But Jennifer ...”
The White House also addressed the question on Thursday of whether the uranium had been removed before the attack. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that there were “no indications” that Iran had evacuated its material before the arrival of U.S. bombs. Trump himself put it more bluntly: The removal would have been “too time-consuming, too dangerous, and too heavy” – and therefore impossible. Meanwhile, Leavitt tried to give the operation a diplomatic angle: the attack had “eliminated the immediate threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program” and marked the beginning of a new diplomatic path. But that path is littered with constitutional questions. The Senate is expected to vote this week on a resolution that would require congressional approval for future military strikes against Iran. Some Republicans support the measure – a quiet rebellion against Trump’s expansive executive authority.
Tensions are also rising in Israel. Although Trump was initially praised by nearly all political factions for the strikes, his subsequent call to “save” Prime Minister Netanyahu from Israeli justice has caused unrest. Opposition leader Yair Lapid called Trump’s interference a “serious assault on Israel’s sovereignty” – a move that comes in the midst of an ongoing corruption trial. Beyond geopolitical tensions, the domestic situation in Washington is also intensifying. Two key issues in the U.S. Senate – proposed changes to Medicaid financing and cuts to Planned Parenthood – were thrown into turmoil by rulings from the Senate parliamentarian and the Supreme Court. Both developments could further upend Trump’s already embattled social budget. Democrats are already calling it a “constitutional fiasco” that targets the most vulnerable in order to fund the largest tax breaks.
And while the president sports his new favorite shirt emblazoned with “Daddy” – a mockingly exalted reference to remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte – preparations continue in Congress for the first classified briefing on the Iran operation. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Hegseth himself are expected to answer questions – at least from the senators. To the public, the operation remains a puzzle of militaristic press conferences, selective information, and rhetoric that wants to be everything – except verifiable. What remains is the image of a government that fights reality like an adversary – with maximum pressure, minimal transparency – and a defense policy that becomes pure performance the more it ought to explain.
English 
German 
