As the world watched with bated breath, the final days of February 2026 brought a flurry of high-stakes decisions and tense debates inside the White House, the Pentagon, and the halls of Congress. President Donald Trump, never one to shy away from controversy, found himself at the center of two seismic crises: the escalating standoff with Iran and a Supreme Court ruling that upended his signature tariffs, sending shockwaves through global markets and political circles alike.
At the heart of the Iran dilemma stood General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man described by sources close to the administration as a "reluctant warrior." According to Axios, Caine had been advising President Trump and his top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, most notably the potential for the U.S. to become entangled in a prolonged and costly conflict. "Caine sees the stakes of a major operation in Iran as higher, with a greater risk for entanglement and American casualties," one insider revealed. Yet, the general’s influence was clear—he was the only military leader briefing Trump on Iran in recent weeks, a sign of his pivotal role in shaping the president’s thinking.
Despite these warnings, Trump’s own instincts seemed to pull him in a different direction. According to CNN, the president argued that his top military leadership believed a war with Iran would be "easily won," brushing aside concerns about potential casualties and the immense cost of a major conflict. On Truth Social, Trump asserted, "He [Caine] 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." The rhetoric was classic Trump—bold, uncompromising, and designed to project strength.
Yet, behind the scenes, the debate was far from settled. Several voices in Trump’s inner circle, including envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, were urging caution. Axios reported that both men advised the president to hold off on military action and give diplomacy a chance, with plans to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva on February 26. Vice President Vance, too, raised concerns about the risks of entanglement during recent internal deliberations, hoping for a diplomatic breakthrough but not holding out much hope. As one source told Axios, "He's presenting information on both sides of the argument to help the president make an informed decision."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, usually a hawk on Iran, was described as "sitting on the fence," focusing more of his recent energy on Venezuela and Cuba. Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were pressing hard for military action. Graham, in a phone call with Trump, urged him to ignore advisers counseling against bombing Iran, while Netanyahu left a recent meeting with the president worried that the U.S. might stand down. "Is he still with us?" Netanyahu reportedly asked, reflecting the unease among America’s allies about the administration’s next move.
Amid these high-level deliberations, Trump empowered a small "brain trust" to present him with military options, echoing the approach he used in planning the operation to capture Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. According to a U.S. official, the goal was to maximize leverage and minimize risk, giving the president a range of choices he could exercise at a moment’s notice. Yet, as Axios noted, "No one is advocating for an invasion or 'boots on the ground' military action." The administration’s calculus seemed focused on striking a balance between projecting strength and avoiding a quagmire.
The military buildup in the Middle East was unmistakable. As CNN reported, Trump had ordered the largest American deployment to the region since the Iraq War, even as negotiations with Iran continued. The U.S. and Iranian officials were scheduled to meet in Geneva on February 26, with the world watching closely to see whether diplomacy or force would ultimately prevail.
While the Iran crisis dominated headlines, another storm was brewing on the economic front. On February 23, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs were illegal, a decision that sent ripples through the global economy. U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced it would halt collection of the tariffs after midnight on February 24, a move that immediately affected businesses and trading partners worldwide. The European Union called on the U.S. to honor the terms of last year’s bilateral trade deal, while the European Parliament postponed a crucial vote to ratify the agreement, citing the need for "clarity" and "legal certainty."
Trump, never one to back down, doubled down on his trade war, announcing new 15% global tariffs over the weekend and warning that any country that "plays games" could face even higher levies. "Any Country that wants to 'play games' with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have 'Ripped Off' the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to," he wrote on Truth Social. The message was clear: Trump intended to keep the pressure on, regardless of legal setbacks.
Democrats seized on the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to challenge the administration. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other top Democrats introduced a bill to require the Trump administration to refund an estimated $134 billion collected from the now-invalidated tariffs. "Democrats have vowed that they will block any effort to extend President Donald Trump’s new 15% global tariffs beyond the 150-day window allowed under Section 122," Schumer announced, setting up a fierce election-year clash focused on cost-of-living issues.
Speaker Mike Johnson, for his part, pushed back against the idea of refunds. "I don’t think so," he told CNN, arguing that the matter was not for Congress to decide and that the administration had "good arguments on their side." The partisan divide was stark, with both sides preparing to use the issue as a political weapon in the months ahead.
As Trump prepared to deliver his State of the Union address on February 25, he told reporters to expect a "long speech, because we have so much to talk about." With the nation’s eyes fixed on the White House, the president faced a public increasingly skeptical of his priorities—just 32% of Americans said he had the right priorities, according to a new CNN poll. The stakes, both at home and abroad, could hardly have been higher.
In the end, these turbulent days offered a window into the chaos and complexity of modern American power. From the risk of war in the Middle East to the uncertainty of global markets, every decision seemed to carry consequences that would reverberate far beyond the Beltway. For now, all eyes remain on Washington, waiting to see what comes next.