Arutz Sheva / Israel National News, on Iran, 13 November 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Trump: Middle East allies asked me to hold off on new Iran strikes

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findingsSee them marked on israelnationalnews.com

US President Donald Trump said he could destroy Iran's energy infrastructure, bridges and manufacturing capabilities within three days, but has refrained from doing so at the request of Middle Eastern countries that prefer a more gradual approach to . Speaking in an interview with Stephen A. Smith, Trump defended his decision to continue the military campaign against Iran despite criticism that the war contributed to Republican losses in last week's midterm elections.

"Well, the war was just something I had to do regardless. Wars are always very difficult when you have elections, but I had to do it. That should have been done long before me by other presidents," Trump said. He accused Iran of decades of violence against Americans and of killing tens of thousands of protesters in recent months. "It's an evil empire and we've knocked the hell out of them and they won't have a nuclear weapon. We've taken that away and we'll make sure we take it away.

That's why I'm there," the President declared. Asked why the conflict was continuing if the United States possessed the military capability to defeat Iran decisively, Trump said several American allies in the Middle East had urged him not to escalate the campaign further. "I could end it immediately, but at the request of the nations that I'm looking to protect, we are doing it a little bit longer way, a little bit more civilly. Saudi Arabia has asked me to please just let it be the way it is now for a while because they're disintegrating," he explained.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never mentions that negotiations with Iran were under way. This outlet reported days earlier that mediators were urging Trump to allow time for talks on a proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the US blockade, and that Trump had called renewed strikes 'highly unlikely'. Without this, a reader takes the pause in strikes as only the allies' preference for weakening Iran slowly, rather than as a pause tied to active diplomacy.

How we know

"Qatar, if you look at that, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, all of them would much prefer the waiting period. We put a very big financial hurt on them and they have 300 percent - more than that - of inflation. They have no money. They haven't paid their guard. They haven't paid their soldiers. They haven't paid their police." Trump described Iran as a country experiencing severe economic and military difficulties, claiming that American operations had eliminated much of its ability to wage war.

"It's a nation that's in serious trouble. So they've asked me to do that. And I'm doing that. I'm not sure I agree with it, but we've taken them largely out. As you know, the Navy is gone. Their Air Force is gone. Their anti-aircraft is gone. Everything is gone. Frankly, their leaders are gone for the most part," he said. When Smith pressed him on whether the wishes of regional allies were the reason the United States remained engaged in the conflict,

"Yeah, that's just because the people that we're looking to protect, and that includes Israel, the people that we're looking to protect, which is basically the Middle East. And we've had great relationships with them. They're tremendous investors in our country. They spend trillions of dollars in our country. ," Trump stated. Smith subsequently questioned whether Trump's personal feelings toward Iran, including the Iranian regime's alleged attempts to assassinate him, were contributing to his decision to continue the war.

Trump acknowledged that hostility toward those who had threatened him was a natural human reaction. "Well, it's a human reflex. I mean, I feel that way. I know you would feel that way, too," he replied. "I hate my opponents. It's not a question of opponents. I hate certain people. I don't hate all my opponents. I respect a lot of my opponents. But there are some that I think were way across the line, and I have a certain hatred for them.

So do many people." Smith pointed to a billboard in Tehran threatening Trump's life and asking whether his explained the continuation of the military campaign. "They're an evil enemy. They've killed many Americans. They've killed many American soldiers, sailors, as you know. But other than that, they've killed 75,000 protesters recently, and it's much more than that. They're a very evil group of people," Trump responded.

"And I certainly, I don't hate the people of Iran, but I think their leadership has been a horrible, horrible thing. It truly is the number one state sponsor of terror in the world. Everybody said that. That's not a phrase used by me. It's a phrase given by many people that know what's happening, including the United Nations." Trump emphasized that his criticism was directed at Iran's leadership rather than the Iranian population. "When I say hate, I certainly don't love them.

They've killed a lot of American soldiers," he said. When Smith suggested that Trump's claims about having largely disarmed Iran were based on his own assessment, the President pushed back. "No, no, no. It's not what I say. It's what happened. Okay. Okay. I mean, you just take a look. You sound like the New York Times . They try and justify everything," Trump responded. He continued by accusing Iran's leadership of threatening Israel, the United States and other Middle Eastern countries, including states that had not previously been its enemies.

"Look, they are a very bad group of people, the leadership I'm talking about. They're violent. They hate us. They say death to America constantly. They say death to Israel. They say death, in many cases, to the Middle East. Look, they attacked five countries that weren't even their enemies, and they attacked them, which was the biggest surprise of that war, because they went after Saudi Arabia, they went after UAE, and they went after Qatar."

Smith then asked directly whether Trump would have already taken more decisive military action against Iran if other Middle Eastern countries had not urged him to exercise restraint. "Yes, I would. I would have, yeah," Trump answered. Asked what such an escalation would involve, Trump outlined the Iranian infrastructure that American forces had deliberately avoided targeting and warned that it could be destroyed rapidly. "Going further than I went.

We've gone very far. We've attacked them pretty far. But we, for the most part, left their bridges alone. We took out one big bridge, because they behave very badly. And we've let their electric manufacturing capability survive," he explained. "And we haven't attacked their energy at all. We haven't attacked their energy. If I want to take them out, I hit there. In one day, their energy is gone. In one day, their bridges are gone. And in one day, their manufacturing capability is gone.

It would only take me three days, one day each," Trump concluded.

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

Israel National News reports Trump's interview largely through his own quotes and lets his claim that Israel is among the countries preferring the current approach stand unchallenged, although the outlet reported three days earlier, citing the Financial Times, that Netanyahu favoured renewed strikes. It also leaves out its own reporting that mediators were seeking time for negotiations. In its own narration it calls Iran's government 'the regime'.

  1. Drops what it reported before

    Serious

    “Trump explicitly included Israel among the countries whose security considerations were influencing his decisions.”

    Why this matters
    The outlet sums up, in its own voice, that Trump 'explicitly included Israel' among the countries shaping his restraint, and sets nothing beside it.
    The impression it gives
    Israel is one of the allies asking Trump to hold off on new strikes on Iran.
    The context
    Three days earlier the same outlet reported, citing the Financial Times, that Netanyahu had been urging Trump to resume military operations against Iran. A source quoted in that report said there was no current 'push', but confirmed that Netanyahu favoured renewed military action. The article never mentions Netanyahu's position.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “The people that we're here to protect would rather have me do it the way I'm doing it now”

    Why this matters
    The outlet closes the passage on Trump's claim that everyone he protects, which he has just said includes Israel, prefers the current approach.
    The impression it gives
    Israel and the Gulf states share one view that favours restraint.
    The context
    The outlet's own earlier report described a split. Arab and Muslim leaders contacted Trump to discourage further military action because of concern over Netanyahu's efforts to secure a renewed American-Israeli offensive.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “weakening the Iranian regime”

    Why this matters
    In its opening narration the outlet calls Iran's government 'the Iranian regime' with no attribution.
    The impression it gives
    The outlet's own verdict is that Iran's government is an illegitimate regime, given as a neutral description.
    The context
    This is the outlet's narration, not Trump's quoted words. A neutral report would say 'Iran's government'.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“we are doing it a little bit longer way, a little bit more civilly”

    Show it in the article

    “personal hostility toward the regime”

    Why this matters
    The outlet again uses 'the regime' in its own voice, this time when paraphrasing Smith's question rather than quoting it.
    The impression it gives
    'Regime' is the plain term for Iran's government.
    The context
    The word sits in the outlet's paraphrase, not inside quotation marks, so the outlet takes on the label as its own.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“the Iranian regime's alleged attempts to assassinate him”

    Show it in the article

  3. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article never mentions that negotiations with Iran were under way. This outlet reported days earlier that mediators were urging Trump to allow time for talks on a proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the US blockade, and that Trump had called renewed strikes 'highly unlikely'. Without this, a reader takes the pause in strikes as only the allies' preference for weakening Iran slowly, rather than as a pause tied to active diplomacy.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Arutz Sheva / Israel National News

  1. 12 NovTrump warns he could strike Iran again with no hesitation3.0
  2. 12 NovReport: US warns Israel of imminent possibility of renewed Iran fighting0.0
  3. 12 NovIran sets conditions for US, issues warning3.0
  4. 12 NovMiddle East expert to Arutz Sheva: If Trump won't strike, Israel must act alone3.0
  5. 12 NovReport: Vance weighing direct meeting with senior Iranian official0.0

Everything we scored from Arutz Sheva / Israel National News