As the G-7 summit in France wrapped up, Donald Trump began an hour-long press conference with a remarkable claim. “On Sunday, we reached an agreement with Iran that achieves everything we set out to accomplish — everything and much more,” the president said.
The fact that the Republican managed to deliver the line with a straight face made it all the more extraordinary.
The principal problem for Trump is that we know exactly what he “set out to accomplish,” because he laid out his objectives in plain terms when launching the war on Feb. 28. Indeed, the president told the world that he had five objectives, starting with a specific goal: “We’re going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated.”
Roughly 109 days later, Trump took the opposite position, arguing that “it’s a little bit unfair” for Iran not to have ballistic missiles because other countries in the region, including U.S.-allied Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are believed to have stockpiles of the weaponry.
In fact, the president said this twice over the course of a few hours, arguing that he believes it’s unrealistic to argue Iran shouldn’t have a missile industry.
It’s hard to overstate what a departure this is from everything the Trump administration said in the very recent past. Not only did the president say that the destruction of Iran’s missiles was a central point of the conflict, but the White House also published a written document on March 12 featuring a series of similar quotes from leading officials.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for example, said on March 2 that eliminating Iran’s missiles was a “clear objective of this mission.” Two days later, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said, “The mission is laser-focused: obliterate Iran’s missiles and drones and facilities that produce them.” The same day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said destroying Iran’s missiles was the “number one” objective of the war.
Three months later, Trump didn’t just abandon his goal; he effectively derided it as unreasonable.