The New York Times, on Iran, 13 November 2026

0.0out of 10Nothing found

Trump Signals New Strategy on Iran: A Waiting Game

No framing issues found.

President Trump says he is leaning toward a new solution to the Iran nuclear crisis: Declare it is over, even if not much has changed. Mr. Trump and his team have taken to asserting that they have the Iranians right where they want them. They say they no longer need a new nuclear agreement that would remove potential bomb fuel from the country, or to limit Iran’s missile capability, two of the leading reasons the president cited 10 months ago for going to war.

Mr. Trump appears — at least for now — to have rejected a series of military options that would involve intense, if time-limited, attacks on military installations, nuclear sites and even some energy infrastructure. All the talk this year of sending in commandos to seize roughly 970 pounds of uranium from the country, enriched to a near-bomb-grade level of 60 percent purity, has been abandoned, albeit for the moment. So has the detailed analysis of whether America’s biggest bunker busters are powerful enough to get deep into Pickaxe Mountain, a site U.S. intelligence believes — but is not sure — is the location of advanced centrifuges that can purify uranium into bomb fuel.

In comments to reporters this week in Paris, where he was attending a meeting of foreign ministers from the Group of 7, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described an approach best characterized as strategic patience: waiting for sanctions on Iran to take their toll and ultimately crack their government. “At this point, the economic campaign and the pressure and the devastation that our economic campaign is having on the Iranian regime is working so well that the president really doesn’t have any need to conduct major combat operations,” Mr. Rubio said.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in . Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Read the original article on nytimes.com (opens in a new tab)
About this analysis

The New York Times reports that President Trump and his team now say they no longer need a new nuclear agreement with Iran, and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio described waiting for sanctions to work instead of resuming major combat operations. The supplied text breaks off after the Rubio quotation into paywall messages, so only the opening was read. Nothing in that opening misleads the reader: the administration's claims are attributed to the people making them, and U.S. intelligence on Pickaxe Mountain keeps its stated uncertainty.

What it gets right

  • “a site U.S. intelligence believes — but is not sure — is the location of advanced centrifuges”

    The Times attributes the claim about the site to U.S. intelligence and keeps its stated uncertainty. It does not present the site as an established weapons facility in its own voice.

  • “two of the leading reasons the president cited 10 months ago for going to war”

    The Times names the president as the one who went to war. It gives his reasons as his own stated reasons, not as established fact.

  • “Trump and his team have taken to asserting that they have the Iranians right where they want them”

    The Times presents the administration's confidence as an assertion by named people. It does not adopt that claim as its own judgement.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The New York Times

  1. 12 NovTrump Says He’s Pulling Vance Off Iran Talks to Focus on Fraud Campaign0.0
  2. 12 NovThey Left Iran, but Now the Regime Is Seizing Their Assets to Silence Them0.0
  3. 11 NovU.S. Efforts to Tighten Blockade of Iran Rely on Reluctant Neighbors0.0
  4. 11 NovBessent Is Moved From D.C.-Area Home to Military Base Amid Iranian Threats0.0
  5. 10 NovRubio Says ‘Major Combat Operations’ in Iran War Are No Longer Needed0.0

Everything we scored from The New York Times