Florida Republican Representative Brian Mast, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Digital in an interview that the United States now has a clear and defined : to disable the Iranian regime’s ability to attack Americans.
He stated the U.S. mission is “to completely eliminate every piece of military hardware in Iran that can reach and harm an American anywhere in the Middle East.”
“This is what we’re currently doing to avoid being hit by any weapon—whether it’s a surface-to-surface missile, surface-to-air missile, or anything else, including those with nuclear warheads or any other type of warhead,” he said.
Mast paid homage to the who lost their lives in the operation. “These knew the dangers of their profession. They went out, fulfilled their duty to defend the United States, and I couldn’t be prouder to thank them for their service; I’m proud to be their brother in arms.”
He emphasized that the administration will decide the scope and duration of the operation. “The U.S. will determine the military conclusion of this on our own terms,” he noted.
Mast strongly refuted claims that Israel dragged the U.S. into a war with Iran, explaining that the Trump administration first pursued diplomacy and set a deadline before shifting to military action.
“Israel has not pulled the United States anywhere,” he said in the interview. “First, the U.S. engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Iran, demanding they end their , halt their ballistic missile program, and stop supporting proxies that repeatedly attack the United States.”
“All of this was part of the debate and conversation: When should action be taken? How should it be done? Clearly, the U.S.—along with President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Rubio, our intelligence director, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—worked to position all assets so that ending Iran’s direct threat was part of the negotiating strategy.”
“It wasn’t by chance that we had the Ford and Lincoln carrier groups in place; that took time,” he added. “Diplomacy was the preferred approach, which is why we started with that instead of a military strike. From speaking directly to the individuals I mentioned, I can say Iran entered the negotiations with extreme arrogance, unwilling to seriously discuss ending their nuclear program.”
“Even after the U.S. offered to fund nuclear materials for a civilian energy program if Iran agreed not to pursue weaponization, they rejected it. They also refused to talk about ending their ballistic missile program.”
Looking ahead, Mast suggested the conflict could reshape Iran’s political future. He described the regime’s formal succession process, which “begins with a three-person body, then moves to an 88-person assembly that selects the next leader,” and noted potential contenders, including “the Ayatollah’s son, ” and “a hard-line cleric named Arafi, who is closely aligned with the IRGC.”
But he also raised the possibility of broader upheaval.
“That assumes there’s no uprising, where the millions of Iranians who have been brutally tortured and suppressed decide to take another path,” Mast said.
“We want to see a change, a new chapter for what Iran has been doing.”