The White House has scrambled to contain a growing political firestorm over contradictory narratives about the unprovoked attacks

US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have offered conflicting justifications for the American war with Iran, as the White House scrambles to contain a growing political firestorm over contradicting narratives about what necessitated the operation against Tehran.

The Pentagon is also reportedly confused about the actual goals of the operation and the viability of waging a prolonged military campaign with limited resources.

What reason did Trump give for launching a war on Iran?

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump claimed he ordered US forces to join Israel's assault because he believed Tehran was about to strike first.

"We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first," Trump said, offering no evidence to support the assertion.

He also suggested that he may have "forced Israel's hand" by deciding to launch what his administration has characterized as a preemptive strike on Iran.

What has Rubio said about the reasons for war with Iran?

Trump's explanation directly contradicted Rubio's account from just a day earlier. On Monday, the secretary of state told reporters that Washington launched the attack because it knew Israeli action was imminent and feared Iranian retaliation against American forces.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action; we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," Rubio said.

What's been the reaction to the contradicting narratives?

The conflicting rationales have ignited fury among Trump's conservative base, with prominent commentators accusing the administration of misleading the public about being dragged into a war on Israel's behalf.

Conservative podcaster Matt Walsh blasted Rubio's admission, stating that "he's flat out telling us that we're in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said."

Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly similarly raised doubts about Trump's decision, stressing that "our government's job is not to look out for Iran or for Israel. It's to look out for us. And this feels very much to me like it is clearly Israel's war."

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to Rubio's comments by stating he effectively "admitted what we all knew: US has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel. There was never any so-called Iranian 'threat'." He also condemned Trump for turning "'America First' into 'Israel First' - which always means 'America Last'."

What are US officials saying about the end goal of the campaign?

Aside from the contradictory reasons for the start of the unprovoked attack on Iran, questions have also been raised about the US and Israel's end goals for the operation, with some noting that they currently appear unclear and could result in a dragged-out conflict.

"It's all over the place right now," former adviser to the late Senator John McCain, Richard Fontaine, admitted to Bloomberg, warning that "if you don't know what you're fighting for, then among other things you don't know when you've attained it - and you don't know when to stop."

Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who has received classified briefings on the operation, has recently also called on Trump to go before Congress and explain "what is the real goal" of the campaign. "What is the objective? What is our exit plan?"

Bloomberg noted that even inside the Pentagon "some officials have also questioned the strategy amid growing concerns about depleting already-limited stocks of key munitions and uncertainty about the goals of the operation."

Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have insisted that the US has a virtually limitless supply of weapons and ammunition.

(RT.com)