As Iran braces for what could be a U.S. air campaign in the coming days, government-controlled media have seized on American news reports that cast doubt on President Donald Trump’s ability to deliver a decisive blow—and even on his willingness to make a final decision.
Particular attention has focused on an Axios report alleging that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine cautioned Trump and senior officials that a military campaign against Iran would carry serious risks, including the possibility of the United States becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict.
“The U.S. can launch an attack but does not know how to manage Iran’s response.”
Nour News, a media outlet close to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, amplified Caine’s alleged reservations. In an X post, it wrote: “The rift between Trump and his commanders is not about the ability to attack Iran, but about the lack of a roadmap for the day after. The U.S. can launch an attack but does not know how to manage Iran’s response. Deterrence stems from uncertainty over the consequences of war, not from a lack of weapons.”
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, echoed the theme on February 24, 2026, at a United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, warning: “Adversaries may be able to start a war, but they will not determine how it ends.”
Nour News’ framing—which likely reflects thinking within Iran’s national security establishment—aligns with Tehran’s broader messaging that any attack would trigger immediate regional escalation.
Trump forcefully rejected the central claim about Caine. “Numerous stories from the Fake News Media have been circulating stating that General Daniel Caine … is against us going to War with Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He called the report “100% incorrect,” adding that while Caine, like others, would prefer to avoid war, he believes that if military action were ordered, it would be “something easily won.”
Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency also weighed in on February 24, arguing that Trump, now in his second term, continues to misunderstand Iran—a flaw it says defined his first presidency as well. According to the news agency, Trump lacks a proper grasp of Iran’s geopolitical weight and national identity, a deficiency the outlet claims is pushing him toward one of the most dangerous foreign policy decisions possible: authorizing war.
Tehran’s ability to escalate the conflict would rest primarily on its ballistic missile arsenal, parts of which were degraded during Israeli strikes in June 2025.
The article warned that what it described as misplaced confidence in Washington—reinforced by recent U.S. actions in Venezuela—could produce a grave miscalculation. It characterized this as a “false sense of confidence” that might lead to a full-scale disaster in the Middle East. The Islamic Republic News Agency stressed that Iran is not comparable to Libya, Iraq, or Venezuela, and argued that attempting to replicate those intervention models would destabilize the region.
Tehran’s ability to escalate the conflict would rest primarily on its ballistic missile arsenal, parts of which were degraded during Israeli strikes in June 2025 that targeted launchers and related infrastructure. Military analysts assess that any U.S. campaign would similarly prioritize Iran’s missile capabilities in its opening phase to limit retaliation. Yet missiles remain Tehran’s principal conventional deterrent.
With few alternative levers of immediate escalation, Iranian officials continue to emphasize their capacity to widen the war. Missile attacks on Israel would be the most likely scenario, while strikes against Arab states would be less certain and potentially more politically costly for Tehran.
