Press TV, on Iran, 27 October 2026

7.3out of 10Serious

Iran

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

US President Donald Trump has again resorted to brazen falsehoods while defending Washington’s ongoing war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, claiming Tehran initiated the war and dismissing an earlier ceasefire as a “waste of time.” Speaking at a campaign rally in Corinth, Mississippi, on Monday, ahead of the November midterms, Trump echoed the talking points of hardline Republicans by asserting: “We didn’t start the war with Iran.

Iran started the war with us.” , declaring that “they’d hit San Diego, they’d hit Los Angeles, they’d hit our cities too,” and argued that the military offensive “should’ve been done a long time ago.” Trump's remarks stand in stark contradiction to the established record. On February 28, the United States and launched the so-called “Operation Epic Fury,” a coordinated assault that assassinated Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, senior military commanders, and hundreds of civilians, including schoolchildren in Minab.

The aggression followed months of escalating threats and came amid stalled diplomatic efforts, consistent with the pattern of the earlier 12-day US-Israeli war in June 2025. Iran responded immediately and decisively with Operation True Promise 4. In successive waves of precision missile and drone strikes, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and allied resistance forces targeted US military installations across West Asia, including bases in Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.

A ceasefire was secured in early April after nearly 40 days of intense fighting, largely on Iranian terms and in the face of sustained resistance. Far from a “waste of time,” the pause reflected the failure of the initial US-Israeli maximalist objectives -- unconditional surrender, elimination of Iran’s defensive missile capabilities, and control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump’s own administration has repeatedly shifted its stated justifications for the war, from preventing a nuclear weapons program (despite Iran’s longstanding fatwa and the absence of evidence of a military nuclear effort) to claims of imminent attack, regime change, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, . Trump’s missile claims are equally baseless. Iran’s ballistic missile inventory, while advanced and regionally capable, consists primarily of systems with ranges of roughly 1,000–2,000 kilometers.

These weapons have proven effective against US bases and Israeli targets in West Asia. They do not include intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the continental United States. Independent assessments and US intelligence have consistently confirmed that Iran does not have the missiles to strike cities such as Los Angeles or San Diego. rather than reflect military reality.

The economic consequences Trump now seeks to downplay stem directly from the US-initiated war of aggression and the resulting disruption in the Persian Gulf. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that any naval blockade or further attacks on civilian and energy infrastructure will be met with proportional and stronger responses. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have emphasized that diplomacy remains possible only on the basis of mutual respect and an end to aggression, while warning that renewed strikes will not alter Iran’s positions.

Trump’s latest comments also highlight a deeper hypocrisy. He campaigned as a president who would avoid new wars, yet authorized a major military offensive that has neither achieved its shifting goals nor ended. His repeated declarations of victory earlier in the year have been contradicted by Iran’s continued ability to conduct retaliatory operations and the persistence of the conflict more than seven months after it began. As midterm elections approach, and the lack of a clear exit strategy rather than presenting an accurate account of events.

Read the original article on presstv.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

Press TV reports Trump's Mississippi rally remarks and rebuts them, but it overstates his missile claim: other coverage has Trump warning that Iran's missiles could eventually threaten US cities, not that they already can. The outlet states the damage done by Iranian strikes, that the US and Israeli assault was unprovoked, and the scope of Iran's Hormuz restriction as unattributed fact. It also assigns Trump motives without evidence and calls Israel's government a 'regime' in its own voice.

  1. Makes a false claim

    Serious

    “He further claimed the Islamic Republic had developed missiles capable of striking American cities”

    Why this matters
    Press TV says Trump claimed Iran already 'had developed' missiles that can strike American cities, then spends S14 to S18 knocking that claim down.
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes Trump said Iran can already hit Los Angeles and San Diego today.
    The context
    Arutz Sheva's report of the same rally has Trump warning that Iran's missile development could eventually threaten US cities, and saying Iran now has a missile that reached Europe. Press TV rebuts a stronger claim than the one reported elsewhere and leaves out the Europe remark.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Trump said Iran now has a missile that reached Europe and warned that its missile development could eventually threaten US cities including on the West Coast.

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “These retaliatory operations inflicted significant damage on American radar systems, tanker aircraft, command facilities, and naval assets, exposing the vulnerability of the US military footprint in the region and forcing a recalculation in Washington.”

    Why this matters
    Press TV states in its own voice that Iranian strikes did significant damage to named US assets and forced a recalculation in Washington. It gives no source.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the scale of the damage and its effect on US policy as established fact.
    The context
    The article names no source for the damage assessment or for any change in Washington's thinking. These are claims that need attribution, whether to Iranian officials or to another source.

    Show it in the article

  3. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “unprovoked”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls the 28 February US and Israeli assault 'unprovoked' in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes 'unprovoked' as an established description rather than Iran's characterisation.
    The context
    The article's own facts, that the US and Israel launched the assault, support naming who struck first. 'Unprovoked' adds a verdict the article attributes to no one.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The aggression followed months of escalating threats”

    Show it in the article

    “which Tehran had restricted only to vessels linked to the aggressors”

    Why this matters
    Press TV states as fact that Iran restricted the Strait of Hormuz only to ships linked to the attacking states.
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes the restriction was narrowly targeted, as a verified fact.
    The context
    This is Iran's account of its own measure. The article gives no source, and no other material here confirms the scope of the restriction.

    Show it in the article

  4. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “Trump's assertion appears designed to manufacture fear and justify continued aggression”

    Why this matters
    Press TV assigns Trump a private motive, to manufacture fear, in its own narration.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the outlet's reading of Trump's intent as reporting.
    The context
    Nothing in the article shows Trump's motive. The outlet offers it as its own judgement, hedged only by 'appears'.

    Show it in the article

    “such rhetoric appears aimed at deflecting domestic criticism over rising costs”

    Why this matters
    Press TV closes by asserting the aim behind Trump's remarks as electoral deflection.
    The impression it gives
    The reader comes away believing the remarks were a deliberate distraction from costs.
    The context
    The article cites no source for this motive. Arutz Sheva reports Trump's own stated reasons, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which Press TV reports as a claim it disputes but does not attribute a hidden aim to with evidence.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  5. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “the Israeli regime”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls Israel's government 'the Israeli regime' in its own narration.
    The impression it gives
    The reader receives a verdict on the government's legitimacy in the guise of a neutral description.
    The context
    The same rule applies in every direction. 'Regime' is a loaded label in an outlet's own voice. Press TV uses it again in its earlier reporting.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 27 OctTrump peddles fresh falsehoods, claims Iran ‘started the war’ as US aggression drags on7.3
  2. 27 OctNo talks with US before Iran’s conditions are met: Senior lawmaker6.0
  3. 26 OctVessels violating Iran’s protocols in southern waters will suffer damage: Top commander3.0
  4. 26 OctTehran quadrilateral meeting fruit of Iranian nation’s resistance and Armed Forces’ valor: Bagheri Kani7.3
  5. 26 OctLeader outlines roadmap for an ‘ever-stronger Iran,’ urges elites to break scientific boundaries0.0

Everything we scored from Press TV