Top World News

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that Israel did not pressure the United States to launch strikes against Iran. Trump was meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and speaking about the conflict with Iran at the White House when he took questions from reporters inside the Oval Office. He claimed that Iran's navy, air force and radar technology had been "knocked out.""I might have forced their hand," Trump said. "You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics and it was opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack if we didn't do it. They were going to attack first, I felt strongly about that, and we have great negotiators, great people, people that do this very successfully and have done it all their lives very successfully. And based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first and I didn't want that to happen."Trump's comments somewhat differed from Secretary of State Marco Rubio's remarks on Monday about how Israel claimed Iran was planning to attack. Trump appeared to say he had pushed for the strikes instead."So if anything I might have forced Israel's hand but Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we've had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out now," Trump said.Trump commented that Iran has targeted Arab countries that were neutral, targeting civilians and hotels, but now those countries have planned to fight back. "They hit countries that have nothing to do with what's going on... which shows you the level of evil that we're dealing with," Trump said. Q: Did Israel force your land to launch these strikes against Iran?TRUMP: No. I might've forced their hand. It was my opinion that these lunatics were gonna attack first. pic.twitter.com/KcDmIbI6Vr— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 3, 2026

An analyst revealed the difficult challenge ahead for President Donald Trump as the war in Iran now enters its fourth day. In an interview on MS NOW's Morning Joe with David Ignatius, columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, and Shashank Joshi, defense editor at The Economist, Joshi discussed the Trump administration's mixed messaging about objectives for the military strikes in Iran, including regime change, then "imminent threats" from Iran against Israel and the push to stop Iran from developing ballistic missiles. "What we heard yesterday from Dan Caine, from Secretary Rubio, from Secretary Hegseth, others, was a very, very different set of aims narrowly focused around Iran's missile program," Joshi said.The war aims, such as regime change, could take weeks, Joshi explained. "Now that, I think, can be done in a short period of time, they can degrade missile stockpiles, and we've already heard the Iranians the Israelis say they have destroyed about half of the Iranian missile launches that Iran's able to bring to bear and I think you could have really long lasting and severe damage done to Iran's missile program by the end of this week," Joshi said. "There's no doubt about it. But the problem is, you would still have an Iran led by individuals who are more hardline in some respects than the leaders who have been killed by the strike so far. You have, you know, a new leader of these Islamic Revolutionary Guard, called Vahidi, who is this man? Well, you know, David is, you know, he is a former head of the expeditionary, IRGC. He was associated with the bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Argentina in the 1990s. This is not a regime that will be more moderate, more pragmatic, more deterred than that, of Ayatollah Khamenei." Despite the killing of Khamenei and the dismantling of Iran's weapons, the problem over Iran's leadership will still remain. "And so, I still think at the end of this week, even though enormous damage may have been done to Iran's missile program, including the supply chain, the explosives, the guidance systems, you will still have the political problem sitting in Iran over regime, that cast this incredible U.S. missile shadow over the Persian Gulf, and I think the Trump administration will find it very hard to articulate that and frame that as some kind of decisive win," Joshi added. The strikes have wiped out the regime, but it could take time for Iranians to reform their government. "But I think the focus of these first three days of operations have been on Iran's missile forces, Iran's navy and nuclear and missile sites as well as political leadership," Joshi said. "I think if you are going to give the Iranian people the confidence to say, 'if we go back onto the streets in a week's time and we want confidence, we are not going to be gunned down in the same way.' I think what you need to see is an Israeli and American set of strikes over the next four or five days that systematically break down Iran's domestic security apparatus." But history could repeat. "I think that is a very hard thing to do, and I think that President Trump will face the dilemma between doing that and upholding his commitment to the Iranian people that he has made and sucking himself into a longer campaign, but it'll, he should remember the case of George H.W. Bush in 1991, who, as you will recall at David and others, called upon the Iraqi people to rise up in 1991 after the first Gulf War and the Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north did so, and they were massacred by Saddam Hussein," Joshi said. "That should be, I think a very, very cautionary tale for American strategy today."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claims that the U.S. was under an "imminent threat" prompting American military strikes in Iran came into question Monday. Rubio told reporters the Iranian military was growing its nuclear weapons program and planning to launch attacks against America, its assets in the Middle East, and its allies in the region — namely Israel. In the days since, Rubio said Iran has attacked civilian areas in the Middle East in retaliatory strikes since the attacks started Saturday."There absolutely was an imminent threat," Rubio told reporters Monday afternoon in Washington, D.C.People were critical of Rubio and the Trump administration amid the conflicting information around the military actions."So now the 'imminent threat' was that Iran would hit back after being attacked by Israel? That’s why the US launched this devastating war and plunged the region into chaos — instead of pressuring its closest ally not to attack in the first place.Impressive logic: start a war to stop the retaliation you expect from starting a war. That’s a very creative definition of 'imminent threat,'" Ghida Fakhry, producer and host of TRTWorld, wrote on X. "The whole thing is dishonest as hell but if you take them at their word: 1) the imminent threat was created by Israel's attack on Iran 2) they say Israel made that attack using U.S. intelligence 3) Trump said he authorized the attack They admit to creating their own pretext!" Aaron Fritschner, Rep. Don Beyer's (R-VA) deputy chief of staff, wrote on X."Netanyahu got what he wanted but what about the American people? What about the service members who died? What about the nearly 200 schoolchildren killed? There's a reason why past presidents didn’t go to war with Iran: they refused to risk American lives to open Pandora’s Box," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) wrote on X."There was no imminent threat to the United States by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the US, then we are in uncharted territory," Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said in an interview with reporters, which was shared by journalist Aaron Rupar on X."This is the most insane and absurd definition of an ‘imminent threat’ I have ever heard in my life. Our ally and proxy, Israel, that we arm and fund, was about to illegally attack Iran so we joined in the attack because that illegal attack would have led to an attack on us," journalist and editor-in-chief of Zeteo Mehdi Hasan wrote on X.

Now that President Donald Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off-ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.This has been very clear in internal conversations: no one wants to take responsibility for the aftermath. This is essentially the difference between regime change and regime collapse.That’s why they didn’t want to do an Iraq War-style regime change where you are actively trying to install a new government. If you do that, its track record becomes your track record.Indeed, if the US manages to kill a lot of the different leaders of the current system, there could be some sort of an implosion. Trump could declare victory even though you would likely have in that case severe instability, or potentially civil war.Another scenario is that the Iranians continue to strike back and outlast Trump. The Iranian onslaught would start to become too costly for the United States with casualty rates increasing (possibly even on the American side), inflation worsens, and global markets become destabilized.And then the pressure on Trump internationally, from the American public, and from his own base would start to become so strong that he would have to look for an exit.At that point, he may actually take the deal that was on the table: a deal that is better than what Barack Obama managed to secure, and that Trump nevertheless rejected. He may take that and suddenly declare it a victory, saying: “Thanks to my bombing campaign, we achieved this.”There is also a third scenario, that is the least likely, in which after a couple of rounds of attacks, both sides may feel they can go back to the negotiating table.They might even go back to the same agreement that was on the table during the most recent talks. And both sides could frame that as a win. Trump can claim he bombed Iran and was very successful. The Iranians can claim they struck back and were very successful. And then they come to some sort of agreement.However that would be difficult because there’s now absolutely no trust between the US and Iran.But even if they did come to some form of agreement, it would be extremely difficult to implement, it would likely not endure, and it wouldn’t be anything more than essentially a ceasefire with a pretense of having a deal beyond that.Meanwhile, Israel’s interest is in pushing the narrative that the negotiations were a ruse from the outset, and that this attack was already planned — because that narrative destroys America’s credibility as a diplomatic force, as a negotiator.And the more you push the narrative that diplomacy was a lie from the outset, the more easily you can avoid any future negotiations.I’m not convinced it really was a ruse from the beginning. There were elements in the US government who were sincere about the diplomatic path, but ultimately Trump fell for the type of pressure that he has proven himself to be far too susceptible to.None of that makes what happened forgivable. It doesn’t make it legal. It doesn’t make it strategic. But we do have to recognize this: nothing would serve Israeli interests more than to completely destroy America’s credibility as a negotiating partner.Trita Parsi is Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute and an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign politics, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He is author of "Losing an Enemy — Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy"; "A Single Roll of the Dice — Obama's Diplomacy with Iran"; and "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States." This article was adapted from Trita Parsi’s remarks during an appearance on Breaking Points