Trump manipulates facts, unclear on goal in Iran: Report

• The Economist says President Donald Trump is unclear about his ultimate objective toward Iran.
• A new poll shows only 27 percent of Americans support a strike on Iran amid growing military deployments.

The British weekly The Economist says US President Donald Trump is manipulating facts about Iran and may not know what he ultimately wants from Tehran.

In a recent analysis, the magazine argues that Americans remain uncertain about the administration’s endgame as Washington stages its largest air and naval buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Read more: Trump denies top US general is warning against Iran war

Despite the scale of the deployment, Trump devoted only a few minutes to Iran during his latest State of the Union address, the report notes. The magazine says the president did not present a clear case to justify what could become a new war.

Shifting justifications

According to the analysis, Trump’s stated reasons for confronting Iran have shifted over time. At times, he has framed the objective as preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In other instances, he has cited punishing the Iranian government for killing protesters, dismantling its ballistic missile arsenal, or even toppling the regime altogether.

The magazine says such shifting explanations have left the final objective opaque. It argues that launching a war without a defined political goal would be an unprecedented gamble, especially given the scale of US forces now positioned in the region.

One consistent US objective over the past two decades, the report notes, has been to use the threat of force to push Iran toward a nuclear agreement. That approach briefly resurfaced during last June’s peak confrontation between Iran and ‘Israel’, when Trump ordered airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities.

Read more: US envoys “disappointed” by Iran during morning session of talks: Axios

Beyond nuclear constraints, the magazine says the administration may seek a broader deal limiting Iran’s missile arsenal and ending its support for regional allies. Tehran, however, has repeatedly refused to negotiate over those issues.

Public doubts grow

Public backing for military action appears limited. A recent poll conducted by The Economist in partnership with YouGov found that only 27 percent of Americans support launching a strike on Iran.

The magazine reports that even some of Trump’s allies within the “Make America Great Again” movement are questioning why he would pursue another Middle East conflict after campaigning against such wars.

At the same time, the administration has fueled speculation through media leaks outlining possible war scenarios without clearly defining the purpose of potential action.

Contradictory messages

The report highlights what it calls stark contradictions within the administration. US envoy Steve Witkoff recently warned that Iran could be “a week away” from enriching enough uranium for a nuclear bomb. Trump, by contrast, previously claimed that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely destroyed”.

The magazine argues that both statements cannot be true. If the president’s claim is accurate, it says, there is no urgent threat warranting a large-scale military campaign. If the envoy’s warning is correct, it adds, then the president’s earlier statements are misleading, undermining the case for renewed strikes.

Historical parallels

The analysis concludes that Trump is not the first U.S. president to struggle with defining a realistic objective toward Iran. George W. Bush hoped the 2003 invasion of Iraq would curb Iran’s influence and destabilize its government. Instead, Tehran’s regional role expanded.

Barack Obama sought to ease tensions through diplomacy and promote regional coexistence, a policy that angered several US allies.

As tensions rise once again, The Economist suggests the central question remains unresolved: what, precisely, does Trump want from Iran, and at what cost is Washington prepared to pursue it.