At a Pentagon briefing, Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Dan Caine gave a clear, forceful update on Operation Epic Fury — the joint U.S.-Israel campaign now into its second week. They presented a timeline from the February 28 missile strikes through the elimination of roughly 50 Iranian naval vessels as of March 9, detailed shrinking Iranian attack capability, and pushed back on claims that the United States is simply following another nation’s lead.
Hegseth and Caine stood together to walk reporters through what has happened and what comes next in a tight, mission-focused way. The operation passed its tenth day with the Pentagon describing steady pressure on Iran’s missile, drone, naval, and industrial targets. Leadership emphasized clear, achievable objectives rather than open-ended commitments.
The timeline shown at the briefing traced strikes across multiple targets and included a map of where operations have occurred to date. That visual underlined the geographical scope of the campaign and reinforced the message that the effort is coordinated and intentional. The briefing stressed precision and the disabling of key Iranian capabilities rather than occupation or prolonged ground commitments.
Hegseth framed the campaign bluntly: the United States is “winning with an overwhelming and unrelenting focus,” and he said the administration rejects open-ended nation-building. He put it this way: “This not endless nation-building under those types of quagmires we saw under Bush or Obama,” a clear declaration that this conflict is being prosecuted with limited, strategic aims. He was equally explicit on U.S. leadership, declaring, “The president is leading.”
There have been critics who argue the U.S. is acting at another country’s direction, with voices claiming, “This happened because Israel wanted it to happen. This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States’ war.” Hegseth pushed back on that narrative forcefully, insisting the operation reflects American choices and American command. The tone at the podium left no doubt about who sets strategy and policy.
Caine laid out three core military objectives that define the campaign’s intent and limits: destroy Iranian ballistic missile and drone capability, strike the Iranian navy and its operational reach, and go deeper into Iran’s military and industrial bases. Those aims are narrow enough to signal focused military goals while broad enough to degrade Iran’s ability to project power. Planning and execution, he said, remain centered on military metrics and achievable end states.
The general also assessed battlefield effects, noting tangible reductions in attacks from Iran since the operation began. “Ballistic missile attacks continue to trend downward, 90% from where they’ve started,” he said, and he added that one-way attack drones have “decreased 83% since the beginning of the operation.” Those figures were presented to evidence operational success and to reassure allies and commercial interests about decreasing threat levels.
Hegseth added warnings aimed directly at Iran’s new leadership, urging the regime not to pursue nuclear weapons and to avoid widening the conflict. He advised Mojtaba Khamenei that it “would be wise to heed the words of our president, which is to not pursue nuclear weapons and come out and state as such.” The message combined deterrence with a clear line: certain actions will invite continued, targeted response.
The Pentagon also talked through regional security concerns, including the viability of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open for commerce. Caine said planners were examining a range of options, up to and including escorts for commercial vessels if tasked, while stressing that any such mission would go through normal civilian leadership channels for approval. The emphasis remained on setting the military conditions needed to protect global trade and regional partners without committing to open-ended occupation.
Across the briefing, the repeated theme was U.S. control and direction of the campaign, measured objectives, and a focus on degrading specific Iranian capabilities rather than reshaping the Iranian state. Officials underscored that progress is being measured in missiles neutralized, drones stopped, and naval assets reduced, and they framed this as a decisive, limited use of force intended to change Iran’s behavior. The language used and the metrics offered were meant to reassure allies and the American public that the effort is deliberate, not chaotic.
Add comment