Report: Joint Chiefs Chairman Warns Trump of Significant Risks if US Attacks Iran

Updated on February 23, 2026, at 4:52 pm EST

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, the highest-ranking US military officer, has warned President Trump that there would be significant risks that come with attacking Iran, including the possibility of a protracted war, Axios reported on Monday.

Two sources told Axios reporter Barak Ravid that Caine was all in on the recent US attack on Venezuela to kidnap President Nicolas Maduro, but described him as a “reluctant warrior” when it came to Iran, as he sees a greater risk of a prolonged war and US casualties. According to The Wall Street Journal, he has also warned that any war with Iran would deplete US military stockpiles, as the US used a large number of interceptors defending Israel during the 12-Day War in June 2025.

The New York Times also reported on the Trump administration’s deliberations about attacking Iran and said that Caine couldn’t provide the same assurances for success as he did with Venezuela. It appears that if the US attacks Iran, the goal would be to topple the government or destroy Iran’s ability to strike Israel with missiles, which would require a massive bombing campaign.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine walks through NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium on January 21, 2026 (Pentagon photo)

President Trump later denied the series of reports about Caine’s warnings. “Gen. 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 on Truth Social. “He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack.”

While the Axios report said Caine has been warning of the risks of an attack on Iran, the sources speaking to the outlet said he was also ready to carry out Trump’s orders should he decide to launch the war.

Both the Axios and Times reports said that Vice President JD Vance has been raising questions about the potential risks, but wasn’t opposed to the idea of bombing Iran. According to Axios, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a staunch Iran hawk, has been “sitting on the fence,” neither advocating for nor against strikes on Iran as he has been focused on Venezuela and Cuba, which are under an increased US embargo.

The Axios report also said that US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who have been leading the talks with Iran, have advised the president that he should give them time to see what they can get out of Iran before attacking. In an interview with Fox News that aired over the weekend, Witkoff signaled that he wasn’t actually interested in the talks leading to a deal, as he said Trump is “curious” why Iran hasn’t “capitulated” and made the blatantly false claim that Iran could be “one week away” from having material to build a nuclear weapon.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the biggest proponents of attacking Iran in Washington, lamented over the weekend that some of Trump’s advisors were warning him of the risks. “I understand concerns about major military operations in the Middle East, given past entanglements. However, the voices who counsel against getting entangled seem to ignore the consequences of letting evil go unchecked,” he said.

The Axios report said that Graham has told the president he should ignore his advisors who are urging caution. During a recent trip to Israel, Graham acknowledged that any US attack on Iran could lead to US casualties, but said the risk of Americans being killed was worth it. “Could our soldiers be hit in the region? Absolutely, they could. Can Iran respond if we have an all-out attack? Absolutely, they can,” he said.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Join the Discussion!

We welcome thoughtful and respectful comments. Hateful language, illegal content, or attacks against Antiwar.com will be removed.

For more details, please see our Comment Policy.