Press TV, on Iran, 27 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Trump peddles fresh falsehoods, claims Iran ‘started the war’ as US aggression drags on

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 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.”

He further claimed the Islamic Republic had developed missiles capable of striking American cities, 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 the Israeli regime 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 , 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.

These retaliatory operations inflicted significant damage on American radar systems, tanker aircraft, command facilities, and naval assets, .

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,” -- unconditional surrender, elimination of , 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, which Tehran had restricted only to vessels linked to the aggressors.

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

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article presents a naval blockade as a hypothetical that Iran warns against, but never says the US has already imposed one. Without it, a reader may believe no blockade is in place.

How we know

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, such rhetoric appears aimed at deflecting domestic criticism over rising costs and the lack of a clear exit strategy rather than presenting an accurate account of events.

Read the original article on presstv.ir (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

Press TV states contested claims as its own fact: that Iran's strikes forced a recalculation in Washington, and that the April ceasefire showed US and Israeli war aims had failed. It also uses loaded words in its own voice, calling the assault unprovoked and Iran's missiles precision and defensive, and it never tells readers that the US has already imposed a naval blockade.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “exposing the vulnerability of the US military footprint in the region and forcing a recalculation in Washington”

    Why this matters
    Press TV asserts, with no source, that Iranian strikes exposed US vulnerability and forced Washington to recalculate.
    The impression it gives
    That a strategic shift in Washington caused by Iran's strikes is established fact.
    The context
    No official, analyst or document is cited for any recalculation. Other coverage reports damage to US bases and a costly repair bill. It also reports that the US is preparing a new round of strikes, which does not fit a settled recalculation.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “the pause reflected the failure of the initial US-Israeli maximalist objectives”

    Why this matters
    Press TV states as fact that the ceasefire shows US-Israeli war aims failed, and it lists those aims with no source.
    The impression it gives
    That unconditional surrender, removal of Iran's missiles and control of Hormuz were the declared aims, and that their failure is established.
    The context
    The article attributes none of these objectives to any US or Israeli statement. Its own S13 says Washington's stated justifications kept shifting.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“has repeatedly shifted its stated justifications for the war”

    Show it in the article

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “unprovoked”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls the 28 February assault "unprovoked" in its own voice, with no source attached.
    The impression it gives
    That no provocation was claimed by anyone and that the point is settled.
    The context
    The US government says it acted because of Iran's missile and nuclear capabilities, and the article's own next sentence says the assault followed months of escalating threats. That the US and Israel struck first is supported by other coverage. Whether the strike was provoked is a contested judgement, and it should be attributed.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “precision missile and drone strikes”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls Iran's strikes "precision" strikes in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    That the strikes hit only what they aimed at.
    The context
    The article offers no assessment of accuracy. "Precision" is a party's description given as fact.

    Show it in the article

    “Iran’s defensive missile capabilities”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls Iran's missile arsenal "defensive" while describing it being used in offensive waves against bases in five countries.
    The impression it gives
    That the missiles' character is purely defensive.
    The context
    The article's own account describes the missiles striking US installations across the region.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“targeted US military installations across West Asia”

    Show it in the article

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article presents a naval blockade as a hypothetical that Iran warns against, but never says the US has already imposed one. Without it, a reader may believe no blockade is in place.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 27 OctIran6.0
  2. 27 OctIran0.0
  3. 27 OctIran3.0
  4. 27 OctIran7.3
  5. 27 OctNo talks with US before Iran’s conditions are met: Senior lawmaker6.0

Everything we scored from Press TV

See how 9 outlets covered this story