Arutz Sheva / Israel National News, on Iran, 26 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Trump on Iran: I’m going to make a great deal

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

US President Donald Trump said Sunday that he was prepared to take the time necessary to reach an agreement with Iran, emphasizing that preventing the Islamic Republic from obtaining nuclear weapons was more important than bringing the conflict to a swift conclusion. Speaking in an interview with FOX 2 Detroit , Trump warned that allowing Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons would pose a grave threat to international security. “You want to see problems?

You want to see not only energy problems but death problems? Let them have a nuclear weapon because they will use it," Trump said. “And, I have to do that first." “I’m going to make a great deal. I’m a longterm person; I’m not a short term person," he said. Earlier Sunday, Trump ruled out an immediate American military strike against Iran while speaking to reporters before departing for Michigan.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never says there is a ceasefire in place, or a memorandum towards a final peace deal. It also never says the war began with joint US-Israeli strikes in late February. It writes of ending "the war" and of "another round of military strikes", so a reader believes fighting is ongoing. In fact a new US strike would break a ceasefire.

How we know

“The answer is no. There will not be a strike today," the President stated. Trump also disclosed that he had received two different sets of intelligence assessments concerning Iran, including information that remained classified. Asked about a declassified intelligence report warning of advanced Iranian plots, he declined to elaborate on the findings of the other assessment. “I have two very different sets," Trump said. “We have very advanced sets of intelligence on Iran.

Some has been declassified and some hasn't," he added, while maintaining that the United States was “doing very well" in its confrontation with Tehran. The President's comments followed several days of speculation about whether Washington was preparing to launch another round of military strikes against the Islamic Republic. On Saturday, Trump declined to reveal how close he was to authorizing additional military action when questioned by reporters.

"Would you really think I'd tell you that? I mean, can anybody from the Wall Street Journal ask a question so stupid?" he responded. Although he refused to disclose his military plans, Trump acknowledged that further strikes remained a possibility, while suggesting that negotiations could still produce an agreement. "Let me tell you, while we're thinking about doing it, and maybe tomorrow, do you really think I'm going to tell you? If I'm going to do it, and there's a possibility I will, there's also a possibility we'll have a nice, big, beautiful agreement.

They want to make a deal. But the problem is, will they hold the deal?" The possibility of an imminent attack had also been raised Friday by Tom Barrack, the US Ambassador to Turkey and Trump's special envoy for Syria and Iraq. During an interview with Lebanese-Australian entrepreneur and podcaster Mario Nawfal, Barrack suggested that American military action could take place over the weekend, even as Washington continued pursuing a diplomatic solution.

“Could there be a strike this weekend? Absolutely. The president has been clear, I’m giving you American policy, the president is very clear: he’s open, and available and accessible to a deal. And we’ve been at the table for months and months and months," Barrack said. Trump was later asked about the ambassador's assessment and appeared to distance himself from the suggestion that a weekend strike was imminent. “[Barrack] is a pretty powerful man, I guess.

If that’s the case, I don’t know anything about it," he replied. Later Friday, during a campaign rally in Florida, Trump again warned that Iran could face additional American military action if it failed to reach an agreement. “We may do another little Operation Epic Fury, or they will agree. If they're smart, they will just say, ‘Let's get down to business.’

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

Arutz Sheva reports Trump's weekend remarks on a possible deal or new strikes on Iran using only US voices, and ends on Trump's doubts about Iran with no Iranian response. In its own voice it calls Iran's nuclear programme 'the Iranian nuclear threat' without giving any IAEA or Iranian account. It also never mentions the ceasefire or the memorandum towards a peace deal.

  1. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “But I doubt they will do that because perhaps they're not smart.”

    Why this matters
    The article ends on Trump's line that Iran is "not smart" and will not agree. It follows his claim in S25 that Iran may not "hold the deal".
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away thinking Iran is the side blocking or breaking an agreement, and that Iran has nothing to say about it.
    The context
    Every voice in the article is a US official: Trump and Barrack. Iran's government appears only as the subject of their threats and doubts, with no Iranian statement on the talks, the strike threats or the deal.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“will they hold the deal?”

    Show it in the article

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “The President made clear that he was not seeking an agreement merely to achieve a quick end to the war, insisting that any arrangement must address the Iranian nuclear threat.”

    Why this matters
    The outlet writes "made clear", which endorses Trump's statement rather than reporting it. It then gives "the Iranian nuclear threat" as a settled thing.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as established that Iran's nuclear programme is a weapons threat that a deal must remove.
    The context
    That Iran seeks nuclear weapons is Trump's claim, and the article quotes him on it. The outlet's own earlier report quotes Trump saying US strikes had already "obliterated" Iran's enrichment capacity. The article gives no IAEA or Iranian account to set against the claim.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article never says there is a ceasefire in place, or a memorandum towards a final peace deal. It also never says the war began with joint US-Israeli strikes in late February. It writes of ending "the war" and of "another round of military strikes", so a reader believes fighting is ongoing. In fact a new US strike would break a ceasefire.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Arutz Sheva / Israel National News

  1. 26 OctSaudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan hold high-level talks with Iran0.0
  2. 26 OctReport: Hezbollah rebuilding military capabilities with Iranian funding9.1
  3. 26 OctKatz: Israel never planned pre-election strike on Iran7.3
  4. 25 OctCan military action topple Iran's regime? Netanyahu's inner circle has doubts3.0
  5. 25 OctReport: Iran threatens to target senior American officials3.0

Everything we scored from Arutz Sheva / Israel National News