Press TV, on Iran, 8 November 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Iran prepared to make any new US aggression far more costly: Analyst

Findings are available in the analysis below.1 finding

Former US government adviser Paul Larudee says Trump's repeated threats of aggression against Iran amount to a show of force, warning that another attack would bring no gains for Washington. “There's no benefit for him personally. There's no benefit for him politically. There's no benefit for the United States,” he told Press TV in a Sunday interview. Larudee warns that any renewed US aggression would face a stronger Iranian response, making confrontation increasingly costly for Washington.

He says Iran is prepared to ensure that any new attack would have far worse consequences for the United States. The commentator also argues that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are driven by ambitions of personal legacy and territorial expansion, with Trump seeking global dominance and Netanyahu pursuing the Zionist agenda by drawing Washington into another military incursion against Tehran. The former US adviser, however, questions Trump's willingness to pursue another military escalation against Iran.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

Press TV closes on the analyst questioning 'Trump's willingness to pursue another military escalation against Iran', and the whole piece speaks of 'another attack' and 'any new attack' as hypothetical. The article never says that on the Friday before, Trump confirmed US military strikes on Iran's Qeshm Island, which Iranian state media reported as two missile strikes, and that Iran said it shot down an American MQ-9 drone. Without this, a reader believes the US had not resumed attacks on Iran and that a new strike was only a possibility.

How we know

Read the original article on presstv.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (1)

Press TV reports a former US government adviser's view that a new US attack on Iran would bring Washington no gains and that Iran would make it far more costly. The analyst's claims, including the Zionist agenda line, are attributed to him throughout. But the article never tells its reader that Trump had confirmed US strikes on Iran's Qeshm Island the day before, so talk of 'another attack' and doubts about Trump's 'willingness' to escalate read as if no US strikes had resumed.

  1. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    Press TV closes on the analyst questioning 'Trump's willingness to pursue another military escalation against Iran', and the whole piece speaks of 'another attack' and 'any new attack' as hypothetical. The article never says that on the Friday before, Trump confirmed US military strikes on Iran's Qeshm Island, which Iranian state media reported as two missile strikes, and that Iran said it shot down an American MQ-9 drone. Without this, a reader believes the US had not resumed attacks on Iran and that a new strike was only a possibility.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 8 NovIran6.0
  2. 8 NovIran6.0
  3. 8 NovIran3.0
  4. 8 NovIran6.0
  5. 8 NovIran6.0

Everything we scored from Press TV