U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly appeared to shift responsibility for the decision to launch military action against Iran onto his Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying that Hegseth was among the first to advocate for offensive action. The remarks came as the conflict with Iran entered its fourth week and growing scrutiny emerged about how and why the United States became engaged in the strikes.

At a roundtable event in Tennessee on Monday, Trump recounted internal discussions leading up to the military campaign. In remarks that drew attention both in Washington and international capitals, Trump said, “Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up, and you said, ‘Let’s do it because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,’” while Hegseth sat beside him. The president characterised the choice as a response to what his administration viewed as a significant regional threat.

Trump’s latest account adds to a series of conflicting explanations from within his own administration about how the war began. Officials have variously suggested that an Israeli strike was imminent regardless of U.S. involvement, that Iran was close to developing nuclear capabilities, or that broader strategic considerations necessitated action. The differing narratives have made it difficult for analysts to pinpoint a single rationale for the American decision to conduct strikes.

Also Read: Trump-Netanyahu Call That Triggered Decisive Strike On Iran’s Khamenei

The president’s comments also intersected with broader questions about preparation for Iran’s response. The U.S. commander-in-chief previously described Tehran’s retaliatory strikes across the Gulf as “unexpected,” asserting that “nobody was even thinking about it,” despite reports from other sources that advance warnings of possible Iranian retaliation had been shared within the U.S. government.

Hegseth, for his part, has been a prominent public face of the military campaign, frequently briefing reporters at the Pentagon on U.S. objectives. In these briefings, he has outlined strategic goals such as dismantling Iran’s missile, drone, and naval capabilities while also defending the operation against criticism in the media. His role in shaping and explaining the campaign has made him a central figure in Washington’s policy discussions.

Within the Trump administration, divisions over the decision to go to war have been apparent. Trump himself acknowledged that Vice President J.D. Vance was less enthusiastic about the military action, even though Vance has not publicly criticised it. Reports also suggest that outside figures — including influential foreign leaders and media personalities — were among those urging a more assertive stance toward Iran, while others at the Pentagon and within the executive branch advised caution.

The narrative shift has also contributed to broader debate in the United States about accountability for entering the conflict, with critics contending that Trump’s remarks reflect an effort to distance himself from political blowback amid mounting questions about the human and diplomatic costs of the campaign. As the conflict continues, the White House has both indicated openness to negotiations and extended ultimatums directed at Tehran, even as Iranian officials deny any substantive dialogue with U.S. representatives.

Also Read: Trump Ultimatum Nears, Iran Threatens Attacks on Gulf Infrastructure