General Dan Caine has cautioned against a potential US military strike on Iran, highlighting inadequate munitions and lack of allied support that could jeopardize US personnel.
The Pentagon’s top general has cautioned the White House about the risks of a potential US military strike on Iran, as President Donald Trump publicly dismissed reports of internal opposition to such action. According to people familiar with private discussions, Gen Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned President Trump and senior officials at a White House meeting last week that significant shortfalls in critical munitions and a lack of allied support would increase the risks of any major operation against Iran and endanger US personnel.
The meeting, which has not previously been reported, included Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House adviser Stephen Miller, one person told The Washington Post.
Gen Caine is said to have expressed concern that US munitions stockpiles have been depleted by Washington’s defence of Israel and support for Ukraine. In separate Pentagon meetings this month, he also raised concerns about the potential scale and complexity of an Iran campaign, as well as the possibility of US casualties, according to one person familiar with the deliberations.
In a statement, the Joint Chiefs chairman’s office said that, in his role as the President’s top military adviser, he “provides a range of military options, as well as secondary considerations and associated impacts and risks, to the civilian leaders who make America’s security decisions.” It added that he “provides these options confidentially.”
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Trump listens to a “host of opinions on any given issue and decides based on what is best for US national security.” She described Gen Caine as a “talented and highly valued member of President Trump’s national security team.”
Trump Rejects Reports
After publication of the report, Trump wrote on social media that it was “100% incorrect” to suggest that Gen Caine was “against us going to War with Iran”.
“General Caine, like all of us, would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won,” Trump wrote.
He said the general “knows Iran well” because he had overseen “Midnight Hammer, the attack on the Iranian Nuclear Development”, which Trump said “was blown to smithereens by our Great B-2 Bombers”. Trump added: “I am the one that makes the decision, I would rather have a Deal than not but, if we don’t make a Deal, it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people.”
People who spoke to The Washington Post about Gen Caine’s views directly contradicted the President’s optimistic characterisation.
Gen Caine’s views are regarded within the administration as credible in part because he oversaw two recent major operations: the assault on Iran’s nuclear sites last summer and a January raid to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. One person familiar with his thinking said the general would support whatever decision the President makes and does not want to be seen as taking any option off the table.
The scale of any military campaign would depend on the administration’s objectives. A former defence official told The Washington Post that dismantling Iran’s missile programme would require strikes on hundreds of targets across a country more than three times the size of Iraq. These could include mobile missile launchers, supply depots, air defence systems and transportation networks.
If the objective were to overthrow Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as Trump has publicly suggested, the number of targets could expand to thousands, including command-and-control centres, security services and key government buildings. Such a campaign could last weeks or months, require substantially more munitions and expose US forces to more intense retaliation, the former official said.
The administration has assembled a significant strike force in the Middle East. Trump has acknowledged he is also considering a more limited strike aimed at pressuring Tehran into agreeing to restrictions on its nuclear programme. Talks between US and Iranian negotiators are scheduled to resume this week in Geneva.
Some US officials oppose a limited strike, warning it could trigger an unpredictable cycle of retaliation, including Iranian attacks on US military and diplomatic personnel in the region. Supporters argue that Iran’s response to previous US and Israeli strikes was relatively restrained, with telegraphed counterstrikes intended to limit casualties.
However, opponents say public discussion of regime change and the influence of hardliners within Iran’s military could provoke a more lethal response.
Rising Tensions
The US has ordered the departure of non-emergency government personnel and family members from its embassy in Lebanon amid concerns that Iran-backed Hezbollah could be drawn into any conflict. Trump’s special envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, told Fox News that the President was “curious” why Iran had not “capitulated” to US demands given the threat of military action.
“Why, under this pressure, with the amount of sea power and naval power over there, why haven’t they come to us and said, ‘We profess we don’t want a weapon, so here’s what we’re prepared to do?'” he said.
