US War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Tuesday that he would carry out the military operations against Iran again, warning that American forces remained ready to respond to any further action by Tehran.
"I stand behind every one of these operations. I was proud to execute them, and I would do it again tomorrow," Hegseth said at a Pentagon briefing, referring to US military operations involving Iran, Yemen and Venezuela.
"And if that regime makes one wrong move, as the president said, we remain locked and loaded with the full weight and lethality of Central Command," he said, referring to Iran.
Hegseth also said American forces had destroyed more than 80% of Iran's nuclear industrial base during the war.
Hegseth says more than 80% of Iran's nuclear industrial base destroyed
Hegseth said American forces had struck more than 13,000 targets during Operation Epic Fury, the US military campaign against Iran, and caused extensive damage to the country's military and nuclear infrastructure.
"In under 40 days of sustained combat, more than 13,000 targets struck. Their navy sunk. Their air force grounded. Their defense industrial base gone. More than 80% of their nuclear industrial base gone," he said.
Hegseth also said the US naval blockade of Iranian ports remained in place and asserted that Washington controlled the Strait of Hormuz.
"The ironclad blockade unbroken. We control the Strait of Hormuz," he said.
"By every measure, we achieved a historic military victory," Hegseth added.
Trump also says he would launch Iran war again
Hegseth's remarks echoed Trump's defense of the decision to attack Iran, despite the president acknowledging that the conflict had contributed to Republican losses in the November 3 midterm elections.
"I did the right thing. I would have done it again," Trump told The Wall Street Journal.
Trump also said the military campaign was necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
"We had no choice. You can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon," he told reporters last Wednesday.
Hegseth discusses strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities
Hegseth also referred to Operation Midnight Hammer, the earlier US strikes involving B-2 bombers against Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
"The largest and most successful B-2 strike in American history. Nuclear sites obliterated," he said.
Hegseth reiterated Washington's position that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.
"The crazy Islamists in Tehran will never, ever have a nuclear weapon," he said.
He credited Trump with ordering military action that previous administrations had avoided.
"History will judge the Iran war quite differently than conventional wisdom right now," Hegseth said.
"We didn't start this war. Iran did 47 years ago," he added, referring to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Hegseth says operations were lawful
The Secretary of War also addressed the legality of the military operations conducted under Trump's administration, including the campaign against Iran.
"Iran, the cartels, Maduro, Yemen, every one was a lawful operation ordered by the commander in chief, then ordered by myself, notified to Congress, and executed by American warriors who did their jobs," he said.
His remarks followed an impeachment effort by Republican Representative Thomas Massie, who accused him of launching military operations without congressional authorization.
Hegseth rejected suggestions that the operations had been unlawful.
"Their service was not a crime. These are heroes, and no politician in Washington will tell them otherwise while I hold this office," he said.
He added that the operations had targeted military capabilities and criminal activities.
"We destroyed terror regimes' capabilities. We sank the boats carrying poison into our communities," Hegseth said.
Hegseth acknowledges 18 US military deaths
Hegseth said 18 American service members had died during Operation Epic Fury.
"Nobody was lost in the mission in Venezuela, but 18 Americans have given their lives in Operation Epic Fury," he said.
"We know their names. I've been to Dover. We honor them every day, but their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve."
He compared the Iran campaign with previous US military conflicts that lasted for years and resulted in thousands of American deaths.
"For generations, my generation fought other Middle Eastern wars that dragged on for years, for decades. We lost thousands, thousands of Americans," he said.
Hegseth said the Iran campaign would not follow the same course.
"This Epic Fury has never been that, and it never will be," he said.
The United States continues to enforce its naval blockade of Iranian ports while diplomatic efforts involving Washington and Tehran remain underway.
The US military moved tankers and tiltrotor aircraft out of RAF Mildenhall in eastern England on Monday over a threat from Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported, the second British base it has thinned out since a suspected Iran-linked plot at RAF Fairford in September.
Flight-tracking data showed nine KC-135 refueling tankers and three V-22 Ospreys leaving Mildenhall in Suffolk on Monday afternoon and evening, Sky News reported. Most of the tankers went to bases in Germany and Spain and one to Prestwick in Scotland. The Ospreys moved to nearby RAF Lakenheath.
The exact nature of the threat was still under discussion among US officials, the Journal said. Washington raised the security level at Mildenhall and Lakenheath to FPCON Charlie, the second-highest on the Pentagon’s scale, which applies when intelligence indicates that some form of terrorist action is likely.
US European Command said aircraft move between locations “for a variety of reasons” and that it could not discuss force protection measures.
Britain’s Ministry of Defense said it did not comment on other nations’ activity. “We’re constantly keeping the security of our bases under review,” cabinet minister Lucy Powell told Sky News, “and as we’ve seen with other cases recently, we take firm and quick action where we need to.”
The move comes six weeks after police arrested five men in the early hours of September 27 near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, which US bombers used to strike Iran during the war, after a local farmer reported three white vans and a group of men, some with their faces covered. The United States pulled all 12 of its B-1B bombers from Fairford on October 4.
Two men were charged last month under the National Security Act. Prosecutors said one, a British-Iranian dual national, had arranged for the men to drive to the base on the instructions of a man known only as “Ali,” and accused him of assisting a foreign intelligence service; police said they believed that country to be Iran. Six others remain on bail. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the plot was “almost certainly” directed by the Revolutionary Guards.
Iran’s ambassador in London has denied any involvement. The Revolutionary Guards warned Britain in July that Fairford and any other base used to attack Iran would be a legitimate target.
President Donald Trump’s talks with Qatar’s prime minister come amid a renewed diplomatic push to end the Iran war, but securing terms both Washington and Tehran can present as a victory remains a central obstacle, analysts told Iran International.
Trump and Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani met behind closed doors in the Oval Office on Monday, and Axios reported that their discussions focused on Iran. The Qatari prime minister also met Vice President JD Vance earlier in the day.
An Iranian official told Al-Monitor on Friday that the country’s nuclear program was “under discussion” with mediators. Tehran has said negotiations depend on Washington meeting its demands, including sanctions relief and the release of billions of dollars in frozen assets.
Trump needs a nuclear achievement to justify the war, not just the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, said Aaron David Miller, a former US Middle East negotiator now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“It’s the nuclear issue. He needs a win to justify this war,” Miller told Iran International.
“And I don’t know whether the Iranians are prepared to make that concession or what Trump would consider to be a win that they could accept. So I think that’s a huge problem.”
Who moves first?
The new round of diplomacy has not settled the basic dispute: whether economic and military concessions should come before progress on Iran’s nuclear program, or after.
Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch of Israeli military intelligence and now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said an interest in ending the war should not be mistaken for an agreement in sight.
“I believe both sides genuinely want to find a way to end this war, but that does not mean they are close to an agreement,” he told Iran International.
Iran wants Washington to meet its conditions on Hormuz, the naval blockade, oil exports and other economic restrictions before nuclear talks begin. Washington wants movement on the nuclear issue much earlier, he said. “The problem is not simply what each side wants, but who moves first.”
A breakthrough was possible, Citrinowicz said, if Washington accepted a different sequence of reciprocal steps. “Without meaningful American flexibility, however, I see little reason to expect Iran to abandon its red lines.”
Miller criticized the interim memorandum of understanding reached in June, which was meant to open the way to nuclear talks but collapsed soon afterward. It committed Washington to a sequence that favored Iran, he said, calling it “one of the worst negotiated documents in the history of US diplomacy.”
Two definitions of victory
Even if negotiators settle the order of steps, both governments would have to defend the concessions at home as achievements.
Trump could claim victory by reopening Hormuz, lowering energy prices, ending the fighting and securing an Iranian commitment not to build nuclear weapons, Citrinowicz said. Tehran would need an outcome it could present as a success too.
“After surviving months of attacks, the Iranian leadership is not going to accept an agreement that looks like surrender,” he said.
Iran could reopen Hormuz, stop attacks on shipping and regional infrastructure, return to nuclear talks and possibly accept tighter international monitoring, he said. In return it would expect real steps on sanctions, oil exports, frozen assets and guarantees against further attacks.
Miller doubted Trump’s wish to end the war would outweigh his fear of looking beaten. “I think he’d want to be done with this, but I don’t know if he’s prepared to spend the next three years being called a loser,” he said.
Eric Mandel, founder of the Middle East Political Information Network, said a deal could let Trump declare victory while leaving the nuclear dispute open.
“The president would like to have a diplomatic solution. The president is looking for victories. He may claim victories where there aren’t,” Mandel told Iran International.
Tehran was drawing out the talks to wait Trump out, Mandel said, and economic relief in exchange for promises of future nuclear concessions could throw the Islamic Republic a lifeline without securing lasting limits.
A meeting is not a breakthrough
Conflicting reports over a possible meeting between Vance and Iran’s security chief show how uncertain direct contact remains.
Turkey’s intelligence chief, Ibrahim Kalin, said Qatar would host Vance and Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, next week, the Turkish newspaper Türkiye reported. The Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, then quoted a senior Iranian security official as denying any meeting was planned and saying Washington must first act on Iran’s seven conditions.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Tuesday there were no plans for Rezaei to meet Vance. The war, he said, would end neither through military action nor through more sanctions. “The only way to end it is diplomacy and acceptance of the Islamic Republic’s conditions.”
Citrinowicz said Rezaei should not be expected to break with the Islamic Republic’s established positions. “He is deeply rooted in the Iranian political and security establishment,” he said. “He is not someone who can simply be persuaded to abandon the regime’s fundamental positions in exchange for an American offer.”
Rezaei is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice over his alleged role in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. He and Tehran deny involvement. As commander of the Revolutionary Guards during the Iran-Iraq war, he led the failed Karbala-4 offensive of December 1986, in which Iran suffered heavy losses.
The decisive question, Citrinowicz said, is whether Vance has Trump’s authority to offer something substantially different.
“A failed meeting could be more dangerous than no meeting at all,” he said. Trump might conclude that diplomacy had run its course and order more strikes to force concessions.
Continued economic pressure, indirect talks and a limited interim deal would remain options, he said, but failure to close the gaps could raise the risk of a return to war.
Iran has selected Abdolreza Masgarian, another IRGC Quds Force commander, as its next ambassador to Iraq, according to Iraqi and Iranian reporting, extending a pattern of military figures holding a diplomatic post central to Tehran’s regional influence.
The brigadier general’s reported appointment comes weeks after former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s criticism of that approach resurfaced, questioning why Iran sends representatives of the Guards’ overseas operations arm to neighboring countries rather than diplomats and businesspeople.
US government-funded broadcaster Al-Hurra first reported the nomination on Monday, citing an Iraqi Foreign Ministry source who said Baghdad had received Masgarian’s name as the proposed replacement for Mohammad Kazem Al-e Sadegh.
Akram Ehghaghi, chief foreign policy correspondent for Iran’s semi-official ISNA news agency, subsequently described Masgarian as the newly selected ambassador in a profile posted on X, saying he would succeed Al-e Sadegh after his four-year tenure.
Iraqi outlet Shafaq News separately cited an informed source as saying Masgarian would take up the post at the beginning of 2027 under his full name, Abdolreza Nobakht.
Iran has not yet officially confirmed the appointment. Al-Hurra said neither country’s foreign ministry had announced the nomination.
Masgarian’s reported responsibilities already place him at the intersection of Iran’s military, political and diplomatic dealings with Iraq.
According to Al-Hurra, he oversees joint security coordination between Tehran, Baghdad and Erbil, having previously handled security coordination between Iran and Iraq’s Kurdistan Region.
The US advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran has identified him as commander of the IRGC’s Ramadan Headquarters, with responsibilities that include coordinating with Iraqi Shiite armed factions.
Ehghaghi’s account emphasized his longstanding involvement in Iraqi affairs and his relationships across the country’s political spectrum.
She described him as a Kurd from the western Iranian city of Kermanshah with close ties to Kurdish officials, saying his detailed knowledge of Iraq was among the reasons for his selection.
Diplomatic outreach already underway
Those contacts were on display on Sunday, when, according to Ehghaghi, Masgarian visited Erbil and met Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani.
Barzani’s office confirmed a meeting with an Iranian delegation on November 8, although its published readout did not name Masgarian. It said discussions covered relations with Iran, security cooperation and security agreements involving Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region. Both sides emphasized diplomacy and peaceful approaches to resolving disputes.
The reported selection would continue Tehran’s practice of assigning commanders with experience in Iraq to its embassy in Baghdad, where relations with the central government overlap with ties to Kurdish leaders and Iran-backed armed groups.
One prominent predecessor, Iraj Masjedi, was a senior Quds Force officer and close adviser to its former commander, Qassem Soleimani.
The US Treasury sanctioned Masjedi while he was ambassador in October 2020, accusing him of overseeing support for Iraqi militias and using his diplomatic position to facilitate financial transfers for the Quds Force. Those allegations illustrated Washington’s concern that the embassy served military networks alongside its diplomatic functions.
Zarif’s criticism addressed the thinking behind such appointments.
In footage from a 2025 speech that circulated again last month, he argued that treating neighboring countries primarily as security threats shaped both Iran’s choice of ambassadors and the relationships it pursued.
“Why are our ambassadors in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq representatives of the Quds Force?” he asked. “Because we see them as threats.”
He argued that an approach centered on opportunities would instead favor businesspeople and diplomats, allowing economic cooperation to play a larger role in Iran’s regional policy.
The remarks drew an angry response from the hardline Kayhan newspaper, which accused him of undermining Iran’s security institutions and helping Washington. Zarif, who served as foreign minister from 2013 to 2021, has defended Iran’s regional military capabilities while advocating greater reliance on diplomacy and economic ties.
The reported change in Baghdad also comes amid friction over US efforts to restrict Iran’s access to trade routes through Iraq.
Al-Hurra linked the nomination to tensions following Iraq’s October 21 closure of the al-Sheeb border crossing in Maysan province. It previously cited Iraqi government sources alleging that Al-e Sadegh was encouraging tribal leaders to pressure Baghdad to reopen it.
Ehghaghi, however, presented the succession as the end of the incumbent’s term. Neither account establishes that the border dispute prompted his replacement.
Democrats' sweeping midterm gains have weakened Donald Trump at home. But do they amount to the strategic victory that some in Tehran are claiming?
“You lost the war and the election,” Iran's security chief Mohsen Rezaei declared on X, mocking what he portrayed as turmoil within the Trump administration and questioning who in Washington should receive Tehran's warning against another war.
“So who exactly in Washington do we need to get this message across to?” he asked.
Iranian establishment newspapers have also been quick to celebrate. Hamshahri declared “The Shadow of Iran Over America's Elections,” while another outlet depicted Trump as a hostage, invoking the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979.
But Trump remains president, with substantial authority over military and foreign policy decisions, even as a Democratic Congress gains greater power to scrutinize and constrain his administration.
Tehran's victory narrative
Behnam Taleblu, senior director of the Iran Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the Islamic Republic's political messaging is central to its strategy.
“The strategy is the propaganda,” he told Iran International’s Eye for Iran podcast.
Unable to match the United States or Israel in conventional military strength, Tehran has relied on asymmetric tactics, economic disruption and political narratives, Taleblu argued.
Conservative political commentator Peter Roff warned that the Islamic Republic may have misjudged the consequences of Democratic control of Congress.
“The mullahs in Iran are the second biggest losers because they bet on change of control in Congress, changing the conduct of the war. And that's not going to happen,” he told Eye for Iran.
While Congress retains powers over funding, oversight and legislation, Roff argued that the election would not fundamentally constrain Trump's conduct toward Tehran.
A weakened president, in other words, is not necessarily one unwilling to act.
Did Iran cost Republicans the election?
Republican political strategist Albert Eisenberg acknowledged that the conflict contributed to the losses but rejected attempts to separate it from broader dissatisfaction with the administration.
“Anybody telling you that the Iran conflict didn't factor in is lying. Anybody who's telling you that the Iran conflict was the only factor is definitely lying,” Eisenberg said.
The war, he argued, accelerated an existing backlash, particularly because the White House failed to explain its objectives.
Joel Rubin, a Democratic foreign policy strategist and former deputy assistant secretary of state under President Barack Obama, argued that affordability, tariffs and economic uncertainty were already weighing on American households before the conflict.
He accused Vice President JD Vance of using Israel and the war to deflect responsibility for the administration's broader failures.
“What Vice President Vance did was demonize Israel for his own administration's failures to execute a war effectively, to explain it to the American people, to prepare for it, to get it through Congress,” Rubin said.
Washington's unresolved Iran strategy
Beyond the election results lies a more fundamental problem for Trump: the absence of a clearly communicated strategy for what comes after military pressure on the Islamic Republic.
Despite their disagreements over the midterms, analysts from both parties questioned whether the administration had adequately explained its objectives to Americans.
Eisenberg argued that Washington had failed to highlight the experiences of Americans affected by Iranian-backed attacks or the plight of women and minorities under the Islamic Republic.
Roff echoed that criticism: “The president has not made the geostrategic case to the American people, and he needs to.”.
Rubin warned that mounting political pressure could instead push Trump toward abandoning the confrontation without securing arrangements to address Tehran's nuclear program or regional activities.
Taleblu identified a related concern. Washington, he argued, has achieved significant military gains against Iranian nuclear and missile infrastructure without defining the political outcome those operations are intended to secure.
Regime change, containment, a limited agreement and deconfliction remain possible objectives, but the administration has yet to establish a coherent path toward any of them, he said.
“Just because the shooting isn't active doesn't mean there isn't a war,” Taleblu warned.
The danger of miscalculation
Tehran may see Trump's domestic troubles as an opportunity to prolong the confrontation or wait for a more favorable political environment in Washington. But that calculation carries risks.
Trump could seek a negotiated settlement, maintain existing pressure or pursue additional military action. The election alone does not determine which course he will choose.
Nor does Democratic control of Congress necessarily settle the question. Lawmakers could challenge the administration's handling of the war and seek to limit further military action, but their ability to change its course remains uncertain.
Taleblu warned that the Islamic Republic remains motivated by revenge and survival, making its behavior difficult to predict even during periods of reduced military activity.
For now, Tehran has gained a propaganda opportunity from Trump's electoral defeat. Whether that translates into a lasting strategic advantage remains uncertain.
You can watch Eye for Iran on YouTube or listen on any podcast platform.
Iran signaled a willingness to negotiate an end to its confrontation with the United States on Monday, but insisted Washington must first lift measures imposed since the Islamabad understanding, as disputes over nuclear activities and control of the Strait of Hormuz continued.
President Masoud Pezeshkian said former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had instructed officials to end the country's prolonged state of uncertainty between war and peace, opening the door to negotiations.
"The supreme leader ordered us to end the no-war, no-peace situation," Pezeshkian said. "We can hold talks with dignity and bring the matter to an end with dignity."
The president also called for changes in how Iran is governed, saying the country's resources should not leave its people struggling to meet basic needs.
"I cannot accept that anyone in the country goes to bed hungry," Pezeshkian said.
Iran sets conditions for two-day proposal
The president's remarks came as the foreign ministry outlined conditions for a proposed diplomatic arrangement that it said could restore regional security within two days.
Iran would fulfill its commitments under the proposal if Washington lifted sanctions, the naval blockade and other measures imposed since the Islamabad understanding, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said.
The proposal was a shortened version of an earlier seven-day plan, Baghaei said, adding that Qatar and Pakistan remained in regular contact with both sides.
The demands drew a sharp contrast with Washington's position after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Iran's terms as unacceptable.
Baghaei rejected the criticism and accused Washington of imposing unreasonable conditions on negotiations.
"We have made it very clear that if the United States meets the Islamic Republic's demands, security will return to the region within two days," Baghaei said.
Nuclear disputes remain unresolved
Iran will not transfer its enriched uranium abroad, and inspections of nuclear facilities damaged by US attacks cannot proceed under existing conditions, Baghaei said separately in an interview with Lebanon's Al Mayadeen television.
The spokesman said International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors had visited the Bushehr nuclear power plant several days earlier and that Iran remained in contact with the UN nuclear watchdog.
However, he argued that the attacks had complicated Iran's ability to fulfill its safeguards obligations.
The remarks coincided with comments from Iranian lawmakers about the country's nuclear capabilities and future policy.
Esmail Kowsari said US strikes during the 12-day war had destroyed aboveground buildings near nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan but had not damaged centrifuges or uranium enriched to 60%.
Another lawmaker, Hamidreza Gudarzi, argued that Iran should acquire nuclear weapons to deter future threats, while acknowledging that decisions on changes to the country's nuclear doctrine rested with senior authorities.
Hormuz dispute and regional diplomacy
Beyond the nuclear issue, Iran and the United States continued to dispute the security situation in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Revolutionary Guards denied that US forces had cleared any naval mines from the strategic waterway.
"No war mines have been cleared from the Strait of Hormuz, and this claim is an outright lie," Revolutionary Guards spokesperson Hossein Mohebi said.
The disagreement came as regional governments sought to prevent further military escalation.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he had told US President Donald Trump during a recent telephone conversation that Ankara opposed another round of attacks on Iran and favored a diplomatic solution.
The United Arab Emirates also warned that a comprehensive settlement between Washington and Tehran remained difficult.
The consequences of the war could persist for years, requiring stronger defense capabilities and sustained diplomatic engagement, UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said.
China pursued its own diplomatic contacts, with special envoy Zhai Jun meeting Iranian security official Ali Bagheri Kani during a regional tour that also includes Oman and Saudi Arabia.
Beijing emphasized that the widening Middle East conflict could not be resolved through military force.
Monday's developments left Iran and the United States expressing sharply different conditions for ending their confrontation, with nuclear disputes, sanctions and maritime security remaining central obstacles to a negotiated settlement.
