Trump military strikes span Caribbean to Iran in assertive campaign

In just over a year, the United States has carried out dozens of airstrikes on ships in the Caribbean linked to alleged drug smuggling networks, launched sustained operations against Houthi forces in the Red Sea, and arrested the Venezuelan president. Nicolas Madurostruck Iranian nuclear facilities and has now embarked on an expanded military campaign aimed at weakening Tehran’s missile and drone infrastructure and leadership.

This rhythm represents one of the most assertive extensions of American power projection in recent years, extending across Latin America, the Middle East, and vital sea lanes.

To the Minister of War Pete Hegsethit also represents a striking turn.

Hegseth attacks the British, says that Iran’s chaotic retaliation has pushed his allies into the “American orbit”

Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, he described himself as a “recovery neocon,” regretting his support for Iraq-era interventionism and warning against open wars.

Many analysts say the hallmark of the administration’s approach may be less about ideological sophistication and more about alignment and implementation.

“Unlike Trump, everyone in Trump’s cabinet now — Hegseth, Rubio, etc. — understands that the president is the boss,” said Matthew Kroenig, a defense strategist at the Atlantic Council. “In Trump 1.0, you had some officials in the Cabinet who thought their job was to save the republic from Trump, the so-called adults in the room. And so I think it’s very clear that the president wanted to go in that direction, and I think Hegseth sees himself as supporting the president’s vision.”

“Check…driving”

This consolidation coincided with a pattern of risk-taking.

Many of the administration’s most significant military moves, from Venezuela to the Houthis to the current campaign on Iran, have the potential for escalation.

“Unlike Trump, everyone in Trump’s cabinet now — Hegseth, Rubio, etc. — understands that the president is the boss,” said Matthew Kroenig, a defense strategist at the Atlantic Council. (White House/Release via Reuters)

Some strategists say the relative absence of early backlash from those interventions may have strengthened the administration’s desire to escalate to the Iranian theater.

Pentagon policy chief questioned as Democrats claim Trump has broken his promise about going to war with Iran

“I’m not sure I would recommend that,” Kroenig said of the Iranian operation. “It’s risky, but it’s going well so far.”

The volume of Iranian missile launches has decreased. The regional allies did not break ranks. However, whether this constitutes a strategic success depends on the scale.

Justin Fulcher, a former Pentagon adviser to Hegseth, said the early stages of the campaign reflected what he described as a “return to strategic clarity.”

“Deterrence is only credible when our allies actually believe that if President Trump says something, we will support him,” Fulcher said. “This is a validation of Secretary Hegseth’s leadership and President Trump’s leadership.”

“Deterrence is only credible when our allies believe that if President Trump says something, we will support him,” said former Pentagon adviser Justin Fulcher. “This is a validation of Secretary Hegseth’s leadership and President Trump’s leadership.” (Kevin Wolfe, File/AP)

Trump says Iran’s seat of caliphate has been eliminated after Israeli strike hits leadership deliberations

Hegseth, a former Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, said the current campaign bears little resemblance to those conflicts.

“This is not Iraq. This is not indefinitely. I was there for both,” Hegseth said at a news conference in early March. “Our generation knows better and so does this president.”

He added in a separate interview: “This is not a reshaping of Iranian society from an American perspective. We tried that. The American people rejected that.”

Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the campaign developed largely as expected.

“I think things went reasonably well,” Pletka said, referring to deteriorating air defenses and what she described as repeated misjudgments by Iran. “All they really did was piss everyone off, and that was really bad calculation on their part.”

At the same time, she warned against interpretation Management actions As part of an established doctrine.

“I don’t think it’s ideological,” Pletka said. “I think this is ad hoc.”

Some longtime Trump supporters have said the current conflict is not what they expected from Trump, who campaigned on ending wars and an “America First” slogan.

Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on X: “It appears to be the worst betrayal this time because it comes from the same man and official who we all thought was different and didn’t say more. Instead, we got a war with Iran on behalf of Israel that will succeed the regime in Iran. Another foreign war for foreigners to change the foreign regime. For what?”

In Pletka’s view, the president has demonstrated a pattern of trying diplomacy first and turning to force only when he concludes that negotiations are not serious. She argues that the situation distinguishes the present moment from previous interventions.

She also stressed that a large part of the operational credit goes to the professional army.

“The planning behind this is a credit to the US military and to the United States Commander of Central Command “And to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” she said.

This distinction complicates efforts to base the current situation solely on Hegseth’s personal worldview. While the Secretary of Defense has become a public face for the administration’s deterrence messages, implementing high-tempo campaigns falls largely to the military’s professional leadership.

Some critics say the administration has not yet clearly defined the final status of the Iran campaign.

“Pete Hegseth needs to check with his boss about the target,” former National Security Advisor John Bolton recently told CNN. “How does Hegseth explain that we actually changed the system, which was not our goal? I think the senior leadership of the Pentagon, the senior civilian leadership, needs some attitudinal adjustment. I think the military is in good shape, but I wonder about the civilian leadership.”

The White House responded strongly to criticism of the campaign.

White House press secretary Anna Kelly said Monday that Hegseth is “doing an outstanding job leading the War Department,” noting what she described as the “continued success of Operation Epic Fury” and other missions.

Kelly said Iranian retaliatory attacks “are down 90 percent because the War Department is destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities,” and added that Hegseth works “in coordination with President Trump every day” to ensure that the US military “remains the greatest and most powerful fighting force in the world.”

The Pentagon echoed this assessment.

“Operation Epic Fury continues to advance with overwhelming success and precision,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said, describing the “firm and comprehensive campaign” aimed at “the complete dismantling of Iran’s terrorist network or its unconditional surrender.”

Others see this moment from a broader historical perspective.

Peter Doran, a foreign policy analyst, described the campaign as a potential attempt to “end a 47-year war” waged by the Islamic Republic against the United States, but on Washington’s terms.

US Central Command released footage showing strikes on Iranian mobile missile launchers. (@CENTCOM via X)

“This is a clear effort to end the war that Iran has been waging against the United States for 47 years,” Doran said.

He said that the clear US military performance could resonate beyond the Middle East, especially in Beijing.

“They look good,” Duran said of the American troops. “I hope it acts as a disincentive.”

If the operation is successful it will eventually result in significant deterioration Iran’s military infrastructureDoran said this could reshape the Middle East and expand diplomatic opportunities such as broader Arab-Israeli normalization.

“It changes everything in the Middle East,” he said.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

However, even proponents admit that the long-term effects remain uncertain. In Venezuela, Maduro’s ouster marked a radical shift in US policy, but the governing apparatus he built remains largely intact. Iran’s deteriorating missile stockpiles and drone infrastructure may buy time, but it remains to be seen whether this will produce lasting deterrence or simply postpone the rebuilding process.

Currently, the administration’s willingness to take calculated risks and its ability to avoid immediate escalation has reinforced the perception of restored American assertiveness. Whether this assertiveness translates into lasting strategic gains is likely to define Hegseth’s tenure much more than the rhetoric that preceded it.

Hegseth and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment.