Trump weighs blaming Hegseth or Caine as Iran war outlasts his advisers' promise

US President Donald Trump is considering which of his senior defence officials should carry responsibility for the war with Iran failing to end, and is weighing a fresh round of strikes shortly after the US midterm elections, according to a report in The Atlantic that was relayed by Israeli outlets on Monday. The Times of Israel, summarising the magazine, said the two names under consideration are Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

According to the account, Trump's advisers had told him before the war began in February that it would be finished well ahead of the midterms, and that assurance proved wrong. Ynet reported that Trump is furious that the campaign has dragged on after being promised a quick victory, that he is worried about the political cost as voters head to the polls, and that he is reviewing plans for an attack that could last hours, days or weeks.

Who is said to be in the frame

Pete Hegseth heads the Pentagon as Defense Secretary, the civilian official in charge of the US military. General Dan Caine, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the most senior officer in the US armed forces and the president's principal military adviser. Both appeared with Trump at a White House press briefing on the Iran conflict on April 6, 2026, according to a photo caption published by The Times of Israel.

The Times of Israel said The Atlantic's sourcing rests on two unnamed people close to Trump who are not part of his administration. Those sources describe Hegseth as unpopular inside the White House and allege that his assessments of the war have been too rosy, shaped to keep the president satisfied. Ynet's summary attributed the same complaint to people close to Trump, who said the Defense Secretary paints an overly optimistic picture and tells Trump what he wants to hear.

The reports do not attribute any comparable criticism specifically to Caine. He is named as one of the officials Trump is weighing, but the allegations of over-optimism quoted in the coverage are directed at Hegseth.

Why the midterms matter here

US midterm elections are held halfway through a president's four-year term and decide control of Congress. Both Israeli outlets described the vote as taking place the day after their reports were published. The Atlantic's account, as relayed, ties Trump's frustration directly to the calendar: the war was supposed to be over before this vote, and it is not.

The prospect of renewed strikes is not new. The Times of Israel noted that the report comes after weeks of reporting and public statements threatening further American attacks on Iran. What The Atlantic adds, according to the coverage, is a sense of timing, with an operation possibly coming soon after the polls close, and a range of options under review that vary in duration.

How the two outlets framed it

Ynet's breaking news alert led with Trump considering an attack on Iran right after the election and searching for people to blame for the war's length. Ynet's fuller article described Trump as examining the performance of Hegseth and Caine. The Times of Israel used stronger language, describing Trump as deciding whom to scapegoat. Both outlets attribute the substance to The Atlantic, and on the core facts their summaries are consistent; the difference lies in how each characterises Trump's review of the two officials.

Ynet's summary also carried a line about the need to bring down the hammer on Iran. The excerpt available does not make clear who said it.

What the reports do not say

None of the coverage includes a response from the White House, the Pentagon, Hegseth or Caine. The reports do not say whether Trump has reached any decision about either official, or what a change in personnel would look like.

The reports give no detail on targets, scale or a date for any new operation beyond the suggestion that it could follow the elections, and they do not say whether Israel would be involved. They also do not describe the current state of fighting with Iran or why the war has not ended. All of the central claims rest on The Atlantic's two unnamed sources, as relayed by Ynet and The Times of Israel; the original magazine article was not among the material reviewed for this report.