SAEDNEWS: Amid growing speculation about possible military action by the Trump administration against Iran, General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Vice President J.D. Vance have reportedly warned about the خطر of a prolonged war and called for a more realistic approach to rising tensions.
According to the political desk of Saed News, Axios has reported that while the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has warned the U.S. president and senior officials about the “significant risks” of any military action against Iran, the U.S. vice president has also raised concerns over the issue.
Although Donald Trump has at times made claims about potential military action against Iran, Steve Witkoff, the U.S. presidential special envoy, and Jared Kushner are scheduled to hold indirect talks with an Iranian delegation in Geneva on Thursday, focusing on the nuclear issue.
Axios, citing two sources familiar with internal discussions within the U.S. administration, reported: “General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has advised President Trump and senior officials that a military operation against Iran could entail significant risks, particularly the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict.”
The outlet emphasized that General Caine’s views could be especially influential, as he serves as Trump’s senior military adviser and is respected by the president.
The sources added: “While General Caine was fully engaged in the Venezuela operation, he has acted more cautiously in discussions related to Iran.”
They further noted: “General Caine considers the risks of a major operation in Iran to be higher, as well as the likelihood of broader conflict and American casualties.”
One source remarked: “General Caine does not advocate for an attack, but he would support and execute whatever decision Trump ultimately makes.”
Another source familiar with the general’s thinking said: “The Chairman does not doubt the military’s capability to carry out an operation, but he takes a realistic and open-minded view regarding the chances of success and what could unfold after the war begins.”
Joe Halstead, spokesperson for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Axios: “In his role as the president’s senior military adviser, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council, the Chairman presents a wide range of military options along with secondary considerations, impacts, and associated risks to civilian leaders who make U.S. national security decisions. These options are provided confidentially.”
Axios also reported that JD Vance has raised concerns in recent internal discussions about potential conflict with Iran.
A source told the outlet: “The vice president has asked military and national security officials questions regarding the risks and complexities of an operation against Iran, though he has denied explicitly opposing a strike.”
The source added: “Vance hopes the Geneva talks on Thursday will lead to a diplomatic breakthrough, but he is not particularly optimistic about the chances of an agreement.”
Another source said: “JD Vance is presenting information from both sides of the debate to help President Trump make an informed decision.”
The White House has not yet commented on the report.
Concerns expressed by Vice President JD Vance and General Dan Caine about a potential military conflict with Iran can be analyzed across several strategic and operational dimensions. These fears do not stem from absolute military weakness, but rather from the prospect of “uncontrollable costs” and “unpredictable consequences.”
General Caine’s foremost concern is that an attack on Iran could turn into another strategic quagmire. Unlike limited strike operations, Iran possesses vast strategic depth and challenging mountainous geography, making full occupation or rapid neutralization of its military power highly unlikely. The difficult U.S. experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have made senior commanders wary of opening a front with no clear endgame.
What gives Vance pause is not merely Iran’s conventional military, but its network of allied forces across the Middle East. U.S. officials understand that striking Iranian territory could ignite American bases throughout the region, threaten energy security in the Persian Gulf, and seriously endanger allies such as Israel and Arab states. A multi-front retaliation could impose costs that the Trump administration may not be prepared to bear.
Iran possesses the largest missile force in the region. Intelligence assessments suggest that the precision and destructive power of Iran’s ballistic missiles and loitering munitions have reached levels capable of challenging advanced air defense systems. The fear of substantial American casualties referenced by General Caine stems from Iran’s capacity to inflict heavy damage on U.S. naval vessels and regional bases in the earliest hours of a conflict.
As a leading figure associated with the “America First” agenda, Vance is keenly aware that launching a major war in the Middle East could trigger oil price spikes, disrupt global supply chains, and require billions of dollars that Trump pledged to use for rebuilding the U.S. economy. A large-scale military confrontation could significantly erode domestic support for the administration in its early years.
Sources told Axios that General Caine harbors doubts about the ultimate prospects for success. The central question in Washington’s war rooms is: “What happens after the first strike?” If Iran refuses to yield and instead escalates—whether through higher levels of uranium enrichment or by threatening key maritime chokepoints—the United States could be forced into a broader escalation that risks spiraling into full-scale war. Such a scenario is one the Pentagon appears reluctant to embrace.
The shift in tone among senior figures within the Trump administration reflects a recognition that Iran represents a “hard power” actor whose confrontation would not be a simple maneuver, but a strategic gamble with the potential to reshape global order and destabilize economic systems. For this reason, despite rhetorical escalations, officials like Vance and Caine appear to view diplomacy and non-military pressure as the safer path forward.
