Ynet News (English), on Iran, 9 November 2026

7.3out of 10Serious

Trump says Iran strikes unlikely, cites ‘positive momentum’ toward ending conflict

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday that renewed military action against Iran appeared unlikely for now, striking an increasingly optimistic tone after meeting Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani at the White House as Doha mediates contacts between Washington and Tehran. Trump described his conversation with Al Thani as "excellent" and said the two had discussed Iran extensively. He said Qatar and other Gulf states "would prefer the status quo," meaning the continuation of the naval blockade without a further military escalation.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article frames the question as whether "renewed military action" will happen. It never reports that, according to Iranian state media and authorities, the US struck Iran's Qeshm island overnight and strikes on Iran were continuing. It also omits Reuters' report that Iran was attacking tankers in the Gulf. Without this, a reader believes the fighting has stopped and only a future resumption is in question.

How we know

"Should there be any change with respect to developments in the Middle East, the United States of America is ‘locked and loaded’ and ready to go," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "At this point, however, that seems to be quite unlikely." "Israel, and the entire Middle East, are protected from Iranian danger and threats," he continued. "We are seeing positive momentum toward an end to this Conflict, and will ensure that America’s interests are at all times protected.

At the conclusion of this Military Engagement, the American People, and the World, will be far safer and more secure." Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Trump said renewed military action did not currently appear necessary. "At this point ... taking the military action doesn’t seem to be a very necessary thing. But we’re locked and loaded, ready to go for any reason that changes," he said. "I think it’s going to be ending fairly soon."

Trump again said Israel would be protected. Asked why he was not simply declaring the conflict with Iran over, he said Washington had allies in the region and wanted to ensure they were safe and that any settlement would provide a lasting solution. He later clarified that he had not said the war itself would necessarily end soon, stressing instead that Iran would not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Trump said he hoped an agreement could be reached, while warning that the United States remained prepared to act if diplomacy failed.

Al Thani described his meetings with Trump and Vice President JD Vance as positive, saying they had discussed the situation in the region and efforts to advance U.S.-Iran talks. He said he was "grateful for the positive discussions on reaching a deal and bringing peace to the region." The comments came as regional governments sought to persuade Washington not to resume large-scale attacks on Iran. The Financial Times reported Monday that Arab leaders have been urging Trump to prioritize negotiations, fearing renewed fighting could trigger further Iranian attacks across the region.

The newspaper also reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now heading a caretaker government following Israel’s inconclusive election, favors renewed military action against Iran. According to the report, Netanyahu has been in frequent contact with Trump as figures inside and outside the White House opposed to another round of fighting seek to discourage renewed U.S. military action. A person familiar with the Israeli position told the newspaper that Netanyahu does want military operations against Iran to resume, but disputed the suggestion that there was currently a concerted Israeli effort to pressure Trump into ordering another attack.

Trump’s remarks came five days after Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in the U.S. midterm elections. Vice President JD Vance has attributed the defeat in part to public opposition to the Iran war. In an interview with CBS’ "60 Minutes," Trump said he did not disagree with Vance’s assessment. "The only thing I wish he would’ve said there, if he felt it, and you’d have to ask him about that, but if you had to do it again, would you do it?"

Trump said. "And my answer is an emphatic yes because you can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I think, historically, this will be a very good decision." "Is it a good decision for today and tomorrow? Maybe not," Trump added. "But you know, I have to go with what’s right for our country." Asked about the possibility of another escalation after the elections, Trump said: "Well, I’m not looking to. I don’t think there’s any reason to. I don’t think there’s any reason to."

Trump also said countries protected by the United States during the conflict would ultimately reimburse Washington for its costs. "At the end of this whole thing, those countries that we’ve protected are going to pay us back any and all costs that we’ve had for the war ’cause without us, they wouldn’t exist," he said. "Without us, Israel would not exist. Let me tell you."

Asked whether negotiations were nearing a breakthrough, Rubio said he had no such progress to report. "I wouldn’t say we’re on the verge of a breakthrough," Rubio said. "The President would always prefer to solve this and every problem diplomatically. Sometimes that’s not possible, unfortunately. But if there’s a chance to do it, we’ll explore it." "Right now it hasn’t been very productive, because ," he added.

Read the original article on ynetnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

Ynet reports Trump's remarks on holding off new strikes on Iran, with attribution throughout, but quotes no Iranian official. It ends on Marco Rubio calling Iran's demands "outrageous and ridiculous" without saying what those demands are or giving Iran's defence of them, which Reuters reported the same day. It also leaves out reports from Iranian authorities and state media that US strikes on Iran were continuing, so a reader takes "renewed military action" to mean the attacks have stopped.

  1. Gives a contested claim the last word

    Serious

    “the Iranian demands are simply not just unacceptable but, in some cases, outrageous and ridiculous and really not realistic”

    Why this matters
    Ynet closes the article on Rubio's description of Iran's demands as "outrageous and ridiculous". It never says what the demands are and sets no Iranian response against them.
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away believing Iran's position is extreme and that Iran alone is blocking a deal.
    The context
    Reuters reported the same day that Iran's proposal involves ending the US blockade of its ports, lifting some sanctions and halting the bombing, in return for Iran ending its own blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, with nuclear talks to follow. Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson defended it as the most reasonable offer on the table. The article gives none of this.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Rubio said talks had not been productive and called Iran's demands "outrageous and ridiculous". Iran's proposal calls for an end to the US blockade of its ports, some sanctions relief and a halt to bombing in return for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and its foreign ministry called it the most reasonable offer on the table.

  2. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The article frames the question as whether "renewed military action" will happen. It never reports that, according to Iranian state media and authorities, the US struck Iran's Qeshm island overnight and strikes on Iran were continuing. It also omits Reuters' report that Iran was attacking tankers in the Gulf. Without this, a reader believes the fighting has stopped and only a future resumption is in question.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  3. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, offered a more cautious assessment of the diplomatic track.”

    Why this matters
    Ynet offers another US official as the only counterpoint to Trump. Trump, Rubio, Vance, Al Thani and an Israeli source all speak, and no Iranian official is quoted anywhere in the article.
    The impression it gives
    A reader hears the state of talks only from Washington, Doha and Israel, as if Iran had nothing to say.
    The context
    Iranian officials responded the same day. Iran's security council chief Mohsen Rezaei told the US to "stop manufacturing fake news about imaginary talks".

    How we know

    Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Ynet News (English)

  1. 9 NovRubio defends Trump's decision to go to war with Iran as US president prepares to meet Qatar's PM 3.0
  2. 8 NovTrump says renewed war 'highly unlikely,' but threatens Iranian infrastructure3.0
  3. 8 Nov‘They sent missiles, we sent a bill’: Tel Aviv suburb sues Iran for NIS 250 million over wartime damages3.0
  4. 7 NovBreakthrough ahead? US prepares to expand the blockade on Iran6.0
  5. 7 NovNew US strikes on Iran raise fears of wider war as Tehran issues stark warning3.0

Everything we scored from Ynet News (English)