Vice President JD Vance defended the recent U.S. military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in a nationally broadcast interview on Sunday, emphasizing that the operation was narrowly targeted and did not constitute a declaration of war against the Islamic Republic.
Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vance stated, “We’re not at war with Iran — we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.” He described the airstrike as a high-precision military operation conducted by U.S. Air Force pilots who, flying out of Missouri, deployed 30,000-pound bombs on targets described as “the size of a washing machine” without landing once in the Middle East. The mission, he said, showcased both U.S. military capability and decisive leadership.
President Donald Trump confirmed in a televised address that three nuclear sites — Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz — were “completely and totally obliterated.” The Pentagon’s initial battle damage assessments described the facilities as sustaining “extremely severe damage,” although intelligence officials remain cautious. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi noted the agency cannot yet fully assess underground damage, and warned that some enriched uranium may have been moved before the strikes.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces have escalated their own operations, striking not only military and nuclear targets but now, for the first time, government-linked entities inside Iran. Among the new targets: Evin Prison, the Basij paramilitary headquarters, and symbolic regime landmarks. The Israeli Defense Ministry described the campaign as an effort to punish “every shot fired at the Israeli home front” with “full force.”
On Monday, Iran launched a retaliatory wave of missile strikes against Israel. Dozens of projectiles landed in cities including Haifa and Ashdod, causing infrastructure damage and power disruptions. Israel reported further airstrikes on Iranian airports and airfields to maintain aerial dominance over Iranian territory.
Despite the intensity of the military action, both U.S. and Israeli officials continue to frame the strikes as strategic, not expansionist. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that the intent was not regime change but to halt Iran’s path to nuclear weapons. “This wasn’t an attack on Iran or its people,” he said. “It was a precise strike to remove a dangerous capability.”
However, the White House is now managing growing questions about endgame strategy. While Trump initially signaled that the U.S. operation would be limited unless Iran retaliated, he later hinted at broader ambitions. In a Sunday evening social media post, the president asked, “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt downplayed the remark on Monday, stating the president was “raising a question that many are asking” but insisted U.S. military posture had not changed. Nevertheless, the administration’s messaging — combined with similar remarks from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — is fueling speculation that the military campaign could encourage internal unrest in Iran.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, now in Moscow seeking diplomatic support, warned that Tehran “reserves all options” to defend its sovereignty and citizens. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a statement emphasizing that the vast network of U.S. bases in the region represents not strength but strategic vulnerability.
