A war waged with lies, deepen crisis

One month into the US‑Israeli war on Iran, President Donald Trump’s statements have been repeatedly contradicted by media reports, experts, and even his own administration. During his first term, Trump made over 30,000 false or misleading claims. That pattern has continued throughout the Iran conflict, with speculative statements apparently aimed at manipulating energy markets and public opinion. Yet as the war widens, many observers now ignore Trump’s words and focus on ground developments.

Claims made since 2025 strikes and throughout 2026 have frequently been challenged by international observers, intelligence reports, and media outlets. As the conflict widens across the Middle East, Trump’s rhetoric appears to have diminishing influence on markets and public perception.

A school massacre blamed on Iran

Perhaps the most egregious falsehood involves the February 28 attack on a school in Minab that killed nearly 180 children. Trump publicly blamed Iran for the atrocity. However, US media reported strong evidence that the attack was carried out by American forces using Tomahawk cruise missiles with a “double‑tap” tactic. The Pentagon admitted the possibility and launched an investigation. The contradiction remains unresolved.

Nuclear claims and military realities

Trump repeatedly asserted that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely destroyed” in mid-2025. However, assessments by international nuclear watchdogs indicated that while facilities suffered significant damage, the program remained intact. At the same time, Trump’s characterization of the war as a “limited operation” contrasts sharply with realities on the ground, where tens of thousands of US troops, naval assets, and air power have been deployed. Iran's continued missile and drone attacks further underscore the scale of the conflict.

Contradictions on decision-making and intelligence

The US president has insisted that the decision to strike Iran was made independently. Yet reports in US and Israeli media suggest that Israeli leadership played a key role in shaping Washington’s approach. Intelligence disagreements within the US administration have also surfaced, with some officials reportedly questioning the strategic basis for escalation. Claims linking Iran to the 2000 USS Cole attack have likewise been dismissed by established investigations attributing the incident to al-Qaeda.

Disputed threats and strategic narratives

Trump warned that Iran was weeks away from acquiring nuclear weapons and developing intercontinental missiles capable of striking the US mainland. Experts and intelligence agencies, however, have consistently assessed that such capabilities remain years away. Similarly, allegations of Iranian interference in US elections have not been substantiated with concrete evidence, raising questions about their political context.

Economic signals and market reactions

Statements aimed at influencing global energy prices and financial markets have also lost traction. A recent claim that the war could end within hours failed to trigger the expected market response. Analysts point to growing skepticism among investors, particularly as US military stockpiles—especially precision-guided munitions and air defense systems—face replenishment challenges that could take years to resolve.

Controversial incidents and accountability

One of the most contentious developments involved a deadly strike on a school in Minab in February 2026. While Trump blamed Iran, subsequent reports and preliminary Pentagon findings suggested the possibility of US involvement. The incident intensified debates over transparency and accountability in the conduct of the war.

Regional escalation and shifting positions

Despite earlier statements downplaying the likelihood of retaliation, Iran has targeted US-linked assets and regional partners in the Gulf. Trump’s stance has also shifted between threats of overwhelming force and claims of ongoing negotiations, which Iranian officials publicly denied. Meanwhile, US calls for allied support—particularly through NATO—contrast with earlier assertions that Washington could act alone.

Energy strategy and long-term presence

In a notable shift, Trump openly highlighted Iran’s oil resources as a strategic objective, by pointing especially to Kharg Island, which handles the majority of Iran’s oil exports. His remarks suggested that any operation could involve a prolonged US presence, raising concerns about a potential long-term occupation scenario similar to past interventions.

Ongoing conflict and regional impact

As fighting continues, reports of explosions in Tehran and the downing of US drones by Iranian forces point to sustained military engagement. The war’s trajectory indicates a risk of broader regional destabilization, with implications for energy security, global markets, and geopolitical alignments—including for Türkiye, which closely monitors developments given its strategic location.

Negotiation claims and regime change rhetoric

Trump has oscillated wildly between threatening to destroy Iran’s electrical infrastructure within 48 hours and claiming “very good and productive” talks with Tehran. Iranian officials—including the parliamentary speaker, vice president, and foreign minister—publicly denied any such negotiations. Trump also declared that “total regime change” has occurred in Iran, asserting that the new leadership is “much more reasonable,” while suggesting that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is gravely wounded. These claims have not been independently verified.

Oil, territory, and endless contradictions

In an interview with the Financial Times, Trump openly stated his desire to “take Iran’s oil,” specifically targeting Kharg Island, through which 90 percent of Iranian oil exports pass. He acknowledged that such an operation would require a prolonged US presence—effectively an invasion. Meanwhile, he claimed the US has “unlimited” weapons stocks, though defense analysts note that production lags behind consumption and replenishment could take years. He also asserted that Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Gulf countries were unforeseen, despite prior Iranian warnings that US bases and assets in the region would be targeted in case of war.

Türkiye’s consistent call for truth and diplomacy

As contradictory narratives from Washington confuse global markets and public opinion, Türkiye has maintained a principled stance based on facts and international law. Ankara has repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire and warned that Trump’s shifting justifications—from “short operation” to regional war—only deepen the crisis. Turkish officials emphasize that diplomatic solutions require honesty and consistency, not manipulation. While the US president’s claims continue to unravel, Türkiye remains a reliable voice for de‑escalation, urging all parties to return to dialogue and respect the sovereignty of regional nations.