International
oi-Ashish Rana
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday strongly defended America’s decision to go to war with Iran, saying the conflict was necessary because Tehran had not abandoned its “nuclear ambitions,” even though he and his own department had earlier claimed that US strikes had already “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. His remarks triggered a sharp exchange with senior Democrat Rep. Adam Smith during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the Iran war decision, citing ongoing nuclear ambitions despite alleged “obliteration” of facilities by Operation Midnight Hammer. Rep. Adam Smith challenged this, questioning the necessity of war if the threat was already neutralized.
Hegseth Says Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Were ‘Obliterated’
During the hearing, Hegseth repeated the administration’s position that the US strikes carried out in June last year had caused massive destruction to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
“Their nuclear facilities have been obliterated, underground they’re buried, and we’re watching them 24/7 so we know where any nuclear material might be,” Hegseth said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
The statement was notable because it appeared to reinforce earlier claims made by the Pentagon that the strikes had successfully dismantled Iran’s key nuclear sites and placed any remaining material under close surveillance.
Adam Smith Questions Why A New War Was Needed
Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee, immediately challenged Hegseth’s argument, pointing to what he described as a contradiction in the administration’s own narrative.
“We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now you’re saying it was completely obliterated?” Smith asked.
Smith’s criticism focused on the gap between two claims: that Iran’s nuclear threat had already been neutralised, and that the US still had to launch a fresh war because the threat remained urgent.
Heated Exchange Over ‘Ambitions’ Versus Capabilities
Hegseth responded by arguing that while Iran’s physical nuclear infrastructure may have been destroyed, its long-term intent to pursue nuclear weapons had not changed.
“They had not given up their nuclear ambitions,” Hegseth said. “And they had a conventional shield of thousands of-“
Before he could finish, Smith cut in and accused the operation of failing to achieve any lasting strategic outcome.
“So Operation Midnight Hammer accomplished nothing of substance and left us at exactly the same place we were before,” Smith said. “So much so that we had to start a war.”
Hegseth rejected that characterisation and insisted Smith was overlooking the distinction between Iran’s damaged facilities and its continuing intentions.
“You’re missing the point,” Hegseth pressed. “Their facilities were bombed and obliterated; their ambitions continued.”
Debate Highlights Bigger Questions Over US Iran Strategy
The confrontation laid bare a broader debate in Washington over whether last year’s military action against Iran truly changed the strategic picture or merely delayed the threat temporarily.
While the Pentagon continues to maintain that Operation Midnight Hammer severely damaged Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, critics argue that if Tehran’s ambitions remained unchanged and the US still felt compelled to enter another war, then the operation may not have delivered the lasting deterrence the administration claimed.
The exchange between Hegseth and Smith is likely to intensify scrutiny over the White House’s justification for military action, especially as lawmakers continue to examine whether the US is now trapped in a cycle of repeated escalation with Iran.
