Trump Claims Nearly All Iranian Targets Exhausted

On the twelfth day of the largest American military operation in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, President Donald Trump picked up the phone for a five-minute call with Axios and delivered a strikingly casual assessment of a war that has killed over 1,300 Iranian civilians, displaced 760,000 people, and sent global oil prices surging past $94 a barrel.

"The war is going great," Trump said. "We are way ahead of the timetable. We have done more damage than we thought possible, even in the original six-week period." Asked about remaining targets, the president was blunt: "Practically nothing left. Little this and that." [1]

It was a remarkable claim — one that, upon closer scrutiny, conflicts with assessments from his own military commanders, contradicts the stated objectives of Israel (his closest partner in the operation), and ignores the reality of an Iranian regime that has already named a new supreme leader and publicly rejected any terms short of continued resistance.

How We Got Here: From Diplomacy to Bombs in 48 Hours

The roots of the February 28 strikes extend back through months of escalating tensions. Iran's nuclear program had advanced significantly, and the 2025–2026 Iranian protests — met with brutal government crackdowns — provided an additional moral impetus for intervention in Washington [2]. The United States began amassing air and naval assets in the region in January 2026 at levels not seen since the outset of the Iraq War.

Diplomacy appeared to be the preferred path until the very end. On February 25, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that a "historic opportunity" to reach a nuclear agreement was "within reach" to avert military conflict, ahead of scheduled talks in Geneva [3]. A third round of indirect talks took place on February 26, but reports indicated the sides remained far apart.

Two days later, on February 28, the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on multiple sites and cities across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials in the opening salvo [4]. The stated objectives: neutralize Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, degrade its military capabilities, and — though the administration has denied this — induce regime change.

The Numbers: What Has Been Destroyed

By the Pentagon's own count, the scale of destruction is staggering. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) reports that American forces have struck more than 5,500 targets across Iran under Operation Epic Fury [5]. The target list includes:

• Command and control centers, including IRGC headquarters
• Nuclear facilities, including enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan
• More than 60 naval vessels, including the entire class of Soleimani-class guided missile catamarans
• Over 150 Iranian air defense systems put out of service by Israeli strikes
• Ballistic and cruise missile production sites at Parchin and Shahroud

Israel, operating simultaneously under Operation Roaring Lion, has launched roughly 3,400 strikes and dropped approximately 7,500 munitions [6]. The combined Israeli figure brings the total number of coalition strikes well above 8,000.

CENTCOM commander General Cooper reported that ballistic missile attacks from Iran have declined by roughly 90 percent since the operation began, and the U.S. has achieved air dominance over Iranian territory [5]. On March 11, the military announced the destruction of 16 Iranian mine-laying boats near the Strait of Hormuz [7].

These are formidable numbers. But whether they add up to "practically nothing left" is another question entirely.

Source: FRED / U.S. Energy Information Administration

Data as of Mar 11, 2026CSV

The Gap Between Trump's Words and Everyone Else's

Trump's assertion that the war could end at any time stands in direct tension with virtually every other stakeholder in the conflict.

Israel sees no end date. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on the same day as Trump's Axios interview that the war would continue "without any time limit, for as long as necessary, until we achieve all the objectives and decisively win the campaign" [1]. U.S. and Israeli officials have privately indicated they are preparing for at least two more weeks of strikes.

The Pentagon is escalating, not winding down. Bloomberg reported on March 10 that the U.S. was stepping up military strikes and dismissing prospects for talks [8]. The military warned of possible strikes on Iranian civilian ports — a significant escalation that suggests the target list is far from exhausted.

Iran is defiant. On March 8, Iran's Assembly of Experts named Mojtaba Khamenei — the 56-year-old son of the slain supreme leader — as Iran's new leader. The assembly said it "did not hesitate for a minute" despite "the brutal aggression of the criminal America and the evil Zionist regime" [9]. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi has rejected calls for a ceasefire, telling NBC News that Iran needs "to continue fighting for the sake of our people."

Experts are alarmed. Richard Fontaine, chief executive of the Center for a New American Security, told Axios: "It's all over the place right now. If you don't know what you're fighting for, you don't know when to stop" [10]. A Reuters-Ipsos poll found that just 33 percent of Americans said Trump had clearly explained the mission's purpose, with 92 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of independents saying he had not [11].

The Fog of Trump: A Pattern of Contradictory Messaging

Trump's "practically nothing left" claim is the latest in a series of conflicting statements that have marked the administration's public communication since the war began.

On March 1 — just three days into the conflict — Trump said the war would be over "soon." On March 5, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared the U.S. timeline was "ours alone to control" [12]. On March 7, Trump's demands for ending the war appeared to shift again, with CNN reporting that his stated conditions had changed multiple times [13].

By March 9, Trump was telling Fox News that U.S. and Israeli forces had "shattered" Iranian military capabilities and pressing Iranian leaders to "cry uncle" [14]. But he simultaneously warned of more "payback" to come, declaring that Iran was "paying for 47 years of death and destruction they caused" [1].

This messaging whiplash has confounded allies and adversaries alike. Arab and European officials told Al Jazeera they have not been able to detect what Trump's endgame actually looks like — or if one exists [15].

"Military power alone cannot deliver the political outcome Washington may seek," one analyst told Al Jazeera. "The military instrument has been authorized far beyond what the strategic objective can deliver. The US can destroy Iran's hardware, but it cannot manufacture a political alternative from the air" [15].

The Human Cost

Behind the statistics about targets destroyed lies a mounting toll in human lives.

Iran reports that more than 1,300 civilians have been killed and nearly 10,000 civilian sites struck since the war began on February 28 [16]. More than 200 cities have been hit across the country. The most devastating single incident — a U.S. military strike on an Iranian girls' school that killed approximately 175 students — has become a focal point for critics of the operation [17]. A Pentagon investigation determined the strike resulted from a "targeting error," with the military having mistaken the school for an adjacent IRGC navy base.

The conflict has spread beyond Iran's borders. At least 570 people have been killed in Lebanon after Israel renewed widespread attacks there, 13 killed in Israel from Iranian counterstrikes, and 17 killed across Gulf states [16]. Eight American service members have died, with approximately 140 wounded — though 108 of the wounded have returned to duty [18]. Some 760,000 people have been registered as displaced since the outbreak of war.

The Iranian IRGC has launched attacks on at least 27 bases across the Middle East where U.S. troops are deployed, as well as Israeli military facilities [4]. Six American soldiers were killed in a single Iranian strike on a makeshift operations center at a civilian port in Kuwait [19].

Source: GDELT Project

Data as of Mar 12, 2026CSV

Economic Shockwaves: Oil and the Strait of Hormuz

The war's economic impact has been immediate and severe. Global oil prices have surged more than 25 percent since February 28, with WTI crude climbing from roughly $67 per barrel to over $94 per barrel by March 9 — topping $100 intraday at one point, the first time since 2022 [20].

The critical factor has been the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's closure of the waterway disrupted approximately 20 percent of global oil supplies and significant volumes of liquefied natural gas [21]. The effective shutdown has forced Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq to cut oil production as storage capacity fills up.

Goldman Sachs and other analysts have warned that prices could reach $100 or higher if disruptions persist, potentially adding 0.8 percent to global inflation [22]. Even a quick resolution to the conflict may not provide immediate relief — analysts warn that damaged facilities, disrupted logistics, and elevated shipping risks could keep fuel prices elevated for weeks or months [20].

Congress: A Constitutional Debate in the Midst of War

The war has reignited the decades-old battle over presidential war powers. Trump launched the strikes without congressional authorization, notifying top lawmakers only shortly before the operation began [23].

House and Senate Democrats moved quickly to invoke the War Powers Resolution. But on March 4, the Senate rejected the measure by a 47-53 vote, and the House followed suit the next day [24]. Most House Democrats and two Republicans supported the resolution, while most Republicans and four Democrats voted it down.

Democrats have vowed to force additional war powers votes and are demanding that Secretary of Defense Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio testify publicly [25]. The ACLU has publicly questioned the legality of the operation, asking whether Congress can stop what it characterized as an "illegal war" [26].

The World Watches — From a Distance

The international response has been vocal but largely passive. Russia and China jointly requested an emergency UN Security Council meeting, where both nations condemned the strikes [27]. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called the killing of Khamenei a "grave violation of Iran's sovereignty" and demanded an immediate cessation of military operations.

Russian President Putin called the assassination a "cynical violation of all norms of human morals" and Foreign Minister Lavrov warned that the war could lead to the very outcome it claimed to prevent — nuclear proliferation [28].

But neither Moscow nor Beijing has moved beyond diplomatic protests and intelligence support. China has drawn clear limits around its partnership with Iran, falling far short of any military alliance [29]. Russia has reportedly provided intelligence to help Iran target U.S. forces, but has kept its direct involvement minimal — a posture experts attribute to both nations' desire to avoid a broader confrontation with Washington.

What Comes Next

Five scenarios for the war's conclusion have emerged in expert analysis [30]:

1. A negotiated settlement — increasingly unlikely given Iran's rejection of talks
2. Unilateral U.S. withdrawal — Trump declares victory and leaves, regardless of conditions on the ground
3. Extended air campaign — weeks or months of continued strikes, with growing civilian casualties and international pressure
4. Ground invasion — broadly seen as catastrophic and unlikely, but not ruled out by the administration
5. Escalation to a regional war — if attacks on U.S. bases or Gulf states intensify

Trump's "practically nothing left" rhetoric most closely aligns with scenario two — declaring victory and moving toward an exit. But with Israel vowing to fight indefinitely, a new Iranian supreme leader signaling defiance, and oil markets in turmoil, the gap between presidential rhetoric and geopolitical reality has never been wider.

As one senior European diplomat told the Financial Times: "The targets may be running out, but the problems are just beginning."