Several different explanations have been given for why the United States attacked Iran on February 28.
And now Karoline Leavitt has offered a new, plausible explanation for why President Trump launched Operation Epic Fury.
But her remarks were quickly met with backlash and mocking comments from critics.
There have been multiple explanations for why the United States and Israel chose to attack Iran, with lawmakers and officials, including Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Donald Trump, weighing in with different perspectives.
One major justification cited by U.S. officials was the threat of a nuclear weapon: Iran was reportedly moving toward developing one, and the strikes were intended to stop that before it became a reality. Trump even claimed that Iran “would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks” if key facilities hadn’t been hit.
Others, like Rubio, framed the attacks as preemptive defense, arguing the U.S. acted to prevent anticipated Israeli action and to minimize potential casualties from Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces or allies.
Interestingly, just a day after Rubio described Iran as an imminent threat that might strike U.S. forces in response to Israeli action, Trump offered a different rationale: he claimed Iran was planning to strike the U.S. first.
“It was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” the president said.
And on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt became the target of widespread social media mockery after offering a surprisingly unusual explanation for President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran.
As mentioned, the administration has already provided several justifications for the strikes, but during a press briefing, Leavitt appeared to offer yet another reason — one that critics quickly summarized as being based mostly on “vibes.”
“I will explain to you…”
Her remarks came as reporters pressed the White House for clarity about what specifically prompted the military operation.
During the briefing, a reporter from The Independent asked why the administration had not clearly outlined the threat that justified the operation. Specifically, they asked why officials “can’t say what the imminent threat against the United States was” that required the launch of Operation Epic Fury.
Leavitt responded by promising to clarify the president’s reasoning, telling reporters:
“I will explain to you exactly what led the president to make the decision.”
According to Leavitt, the strike was not triggered by a single incident, but rather by a broader pattern of threats from Iran. She said:
“This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that Iran posed to the United States of America, and the president’s feeling, based on fact, that Iran does pose an imminent and direct threat to the United States of America.”
She described Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” and claimed the country was “rapidly and aggressively building up” its missile program. Leavitt also accused Iran of being “hellbent on death and destruction.”
Trump’s “feeling” about Iran’s threat
Leavitt emphasized that Trump’s decision ultimately came from his own assessment of the situation, combining intelligence with instinct:
“The president had a feeling, again, based on fact, that Iran was going to strike the United States, was going to strike our assets in the region, and he made a determination to launch Operation Epic Fury based on all of those reasons.”
The phrasing immediately drew attention online.
Leavitt’s comments sparked a wave of mockery on social media, with many users noting the irony that conservatives often use the phrase “facts don’t care about your feelings,” popularized by podcaster Ben Shapiro.
Critics highlighted the repeated references to the president’s “feeling” as particularly striking, with some saying, “These press briefings are a farce.”
”The President had a feeling… based on fact huh?!? I guess he learned that skill from Yoda?,” one person wrote.
”Me: I had a feeling, again, based on fact, that pizza has the same calories as lettuce,” another chimed in.
”We go to wars on feels now, not facts. Got it,” a third wrote.
”Decisions about war should be based on clear evidence and transparent intelligence, not just a leader’s “feeling.” If the threat was truly imminent, the facts should be strong enough to stand on their own,” a fourth said.
READ MORE
- What causes the ”old people smell” and how you can manage it
- Meg Foster looks completely different today, aged 76
