Senior U.S. defense officials told congressional staff in private briefings that there was no intelligence indicating Iran planned to strike U.S. forces first, according to two people familiar with the briefings.
The closed-door sessions took place on Sunday and were attended by staff from both parties on several national security committees in the Senate and the House. Pentagon briefers spent more than 90 minutes outlining the unfolding U.S. operations against Iran, White House spokesperson Dylan Johnson said earlier.
What was said in the briefings
Officials emphasized that Tehran’s ballistic missiles and its proxy forces across the region represented an imminent threat to U.S. interests, but the two sources told Reuters there was no intelligence showing Iran intended to attack American forces first. The people spoke on condition of anonymity.
Those private remarks stand in contrast with comments made publicly by senior administration officials the day before, when they said President Donald Trump had decided to initiate major operations in part because of indicators suggesting Iranians might move to strike U.S. forces in the Middle East "perhaps preemptively." One official said Trump was not going to "sit back and allow American forces in the region to absorb attacks."
Scope of the strikes
The United States and Israel launched what officials described as their most ambitious attacks on Iran in decades on Saturday. Those strikes, officials say, included killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sinking Iranian warships and striking more than 1,000 targets so far. U.S. military statements said aircraft and warships have been active against Iranian targets since the order to begin major combat operations.
Among the reported operations, B-2 stealth bombers were used to drop 2,000-lb (900-kg) bombs on hardened, underground Iranian missile facilities, the military said.
Administration objectives and messaging
President Trump framed the campaign as a prolonged effort expected to continue for weeks. He said the goals were to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, to contain its missile program and to remove threats to the United States and its allies. The president also urged Iranians to rise up and topple their government.
Despite those public assertions, Democrats have criticized the administration, describing the operation as a "war of choice" and challenging the rationale for ending diplomatic overtures. Mediator Oman had said that peace talks still held promise, a point cited by critics. Sources familiar with U.S. intelligence told Reuters that Trump’s statement that Iran was on track to soon develop the ability to strike the United States with a ballistic missile was not supported by U.S. intelligence reports and appeared exaggerated.
U.S. casualties and public reaction
The conflict’s first American casualties were announced on Sunday. U.S. Central Command said three U.S. troops were killed and five were seriously wounded, and that several other personnel suffered minor shrapnel injuries and concussions.
Public reaction to the strikes was divided. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed 27% of Americans approved of the strikes, 43% disapproved and 29% were not sure.
What remains uncertain
Briefers to Congress underscored threats posed by Iranian missiles and proxies, yet they also made clear there was no intelligence indicating Tehran intended to launch the first attack against U.S. forces. That distinction raises questions about the administration’s public justification for the escalation and about how intelligence assessments were portrayed outside the closed briefings.
Officials disclosed the scale of the strikes and the use of heavy ordnance against hardened targets, and they acknowledged U.S. troop casualties. Beyond those details shared in the briefings and public statements, several strategic and operational questions remain unresolved in public reporting.