The Jerusalem Post, on Iran, 31 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Trump 'has not made a decision' on Iran, Rubio tells press

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

US President Donald Trump "hasn't made a decision" on whether to strike Iran, the country's Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Saturday at the G20 summit in Atlanta, Georgia."I think the president's observation is that the United States remains the most highly capable military power on Earth; we can achieve military objectives if we seek to," said Rubio. "He hasn't made a decision. I have no announcement in that regard with you today, nor do we take any of it lightly."

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article frames the question as whether Trump will "strike Iran" and discusses "potential strikes", but never says the US is already at war with Iran, that strikes would be renewed ones, or that Qatar-led talks to end hostilities are under way. Without this a reader believes the US has not yet attacked Iran and that the Iranian drones and missiles Rubio describes are unprovoked.

How we know

The US secretary of state made the comment while responding to a report's question about how confident the Trump administration was that potential strikes against Iran would be brief.Rubio emphasized that Trump "prefers" to solve the Iran issue "diplomatically," saying that he would have otherwise "weeks ago, months ago.""I think what the president expresses to you is incredible confidence that if we needed to do something militarily, we would have the ability to do it and we have everything we need to be successful, but we would prefer to do it peacefully," Rubio told the reporter.Rubio: CENTCOM protecting 'lifeblood' of regional economies An additional question was posed as to how the US planned to assist its allies in the region over the Iranian threat, with Rubio responding that "we're doing it now.""It's not our oil and natural gas that's flowing through the Strait of Hormuz; it's theirs," Rubio said, noting that US Central Command (CENTCOM) was "there now protecting" what he described as "the lifeblood of their economies.""Virtually every day, every other day, we shoot down a drone or a missile that's aimed at a ship… from those countries," he noted.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article reports that Trump "hasn't made a decision" without saying, as the outlet reported the day before, that Trump has said the US would not strike Iran before the 3 November midterms. A reader reads the indecision as a judgement about Iran alone.

How we know

"The United States also has an extensive presence in air defense, and we provide that.”He added that regional US allies are using American military equipment to defend themselves, "along with their own capacities."Rubio further noted that the US "fully" recognizes the threat posed by Iran in the event Trump decides to strike, telling the reporter that the "fact that you even have to ask that question is a reminder of the nature of the regime we are dealing with in Tehran that's been waging war, not just against the United States, but against its neighbors in the region since 1979.""The Iranian regime is basically arguing that 'unless we get what we want, not only will we blow up ships, but we will destroy the energy infrastructure of our neighbors and the entire region.'

Just think about that. Because I think we skip over that like that's some sort of normal behavior. That's not normal behavior," he stated.Iran would threaten to kill hundreds of thousands with nuclear weapon, Rubio saysRubio turned to the issue of an Iranian nuclear weapon, ."Imagine if Iran had weapons of mass destruction of any kind, be they chemical, biological, or nuclear, or all three.

What would they threaten their neighbors with then?" he said. "They wouldn't be threatening to blow up pipelines; they'd be threatening to kill tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. That's who we're dealing with."Turning to , Rubio told reporters that the constant attacks across the region should serve as "a reminder" of the Iranian threat."

The next time a Houthi strike reaches into Saudi territory, it's a reminder: the Houthis would not have the weaponry they have now were it not for Iranian support," he said. "The next time Iranian-backed militias in Iraq either threaten the nation-state of Iraq or their neighbors, it's a reminder that Iran has been a destabilizing force against their neighbors and Iraq all these years.""

The next time an Iranian missile strikes a target in Bahrain, or in Kuwait, or anywhere else in the region, it's a reminder of the threat that these people pose," he continued. "The next time Hezbollah fires a bunch of rockets and invites aggression coming back in their direction… it's a reminder that Hezbollah would not exist, much less have the capabilities that it has now to threaten its neighbors and launch rockets and missiles, were it not for Iranian support."

Left out here: One side gets the space

Rubio fills the entire article and closes it with claims that Iran is a destabilising force. The Iranian foreign minister's same-day comments, which the outlet published hours earlier, calling a US letter a positive step and setting out Iran's conditions, appear nowhere.

How we know

Read the original article on jpost.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

The Jerusalem Post attributes Marco Rubio's G20 remarks on Iran, but in its own voice calls Iran's government "the regime" and Iran-aligned groups "terror proxies". It frames the story as whether Trump will strike Iran and never says the US is already at war with Iran, so any strike would be a resumption, a fact other coverage of the same remarks and the outlet's own earlier reporting gave. Rubio's claims fill and close the piece, while Iran's foreign minister, whose comments the outlet published hours earlier, appears nowhere.

  1. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The article frames the question as whether Trump will "strike Iran" and discusses "potential strikes", but never says the US is already at war with Iran, that strikes would be renewed ones, or that Qatar-led talks to end hostilities are under way. Without this a reader believes the US has not yet attacked Iran and that the Iranian drones and missiles Rubio describes are unprovoked.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “attacked the regime”

    Why this matters
    In its own paraphrase of Rubio, the outlet writes "attacked the regime" rather than attacked Iran or the Iranian government.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes "the regime" as a neutral description of Iran's government supplied by the newspaper.
    The context
    "Regime" is Rubio's word, used inside his quotes elsewhere in the article. Outside quotation marks it is the outlet adopting one party's verdict.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“the nature of the regime we are dealing with in Tehran”

    Show it in the article

    “stressing the threat the regime would pose if it acquired one”

    Why this matters
    The outlet uses "the regime" again in its own narration, this time when it introduces the nuclear passage.
    The impression it gives
    The reader hears the newspaper itself framing Iran's government as an illegitimate threat before Rubio's hypothetical is even quoted.
    The context
    The threat and the label both come from Rubio. The outlet could have written "Iran" or "the Iranian government" and left "regime" inside his quotes.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The Iranian regime is basically arguing”

    Show it in the article

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “Iran-backed terror proxies and militias across the Middle East”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice the outlet calls Iran-aligned groups "terror proxies" as a blanket description.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it as established fact that these groups are terrorists acting on Iran's behalf.
    The context
    Rubio names the Houthis, Iraqi militias and Hezbollah and asserts the Iran link himself. The "terror proxies" label is the outlet's, not a quoted claim, and it flattens the groups into instruments of Tehran.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Hezbollah would not exist, much less have the capabilities”

    Show it in the article

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article reports that Trump "hasn't made a decision" without saying, as the outlet reported the day before, that Trump has said the US would not strike Iran before the 3 November midterms. A reader reads the indecision as a judgement about Iran alone.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  5. One side gets the space

    Minor

    What is missing

    Rubio fills the entire article and closes it with claims that Iran is a destabilising force. The Iranian foreign minister's same-day comments, which the outlet published hours earlier, calling a US letter a positive step and setting out Iran's conditions, appear nowhere.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jerusalem Post

  1. 31 OctAraghchi says Vance's letter 'positive step' toward opening dialogue between Iran, US3.0
  2. 31 OctIsrael prepares for possible Iran escalation as US delays military action until after midterms6.0
  3. 31 OctEgyptian foreign minister 'extremely worried' US-Iran escalation will have major impact on Mideast0.0
  4. 31 OctQatari mediators hold over 12 hours of talks aimed at renewing direct US-Iran negotiations - report3.0
  5. 31 OctKhamenei: IRGC will have 'immediate, unrestricted response' to any US, Israeli threats3.0

Everything we scored from The Jerusalem Post