Skip to main content

How four key Trump claims about the Iran war have fallen apart

(CNN) — Several of President Donald Trump’s key claims about the war with Iran have fallen apart.

Some of Trump’s claims were obviously untrue at the time he made them. Some were boasts that had a factual basis at the time but ceased to be true as the war continued. And others were assertions about what would supposedly happen in the near future but didn’t.

In congressional hearings Tuesday and Wednesday, Democrats pressed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz over some of the Trump administration’s previous declarations about the war. Here’s a look at four claims Trump has made:

Iran’s military

Trump’s claims: Trump repeatedly claimed this spring that Iran’s military capabilities had been entirely eradicated.

For example, he said in March, “Everything they have is gone, including their leadership.” He said in April, “They can’t fight back.” He said in May that Iran’s “military is totally gone” and that “we’ve totally destroyed their military.” He said in early July, “Look, they have no military left.”

How the claims fell apart: Even after Trump’s remarks, Iran was able to launch military attacks on US forces, US allies in the region and commercial ships – and kill and injure American servicemembers.

Even before these Iranian attacks, it was clear that Trump wasn’t telling the truth about the state of Iran’s military. CNN reported in the spring that US intelligence had found that Iran continued to have considerable military capabilities and was rapidly rebuilding various capabilities that had been weakened in the war. And Trump intermittently acknowledged on various occasions that Iran still had “some” missiles and drones, though he emphasized how much Iranian material had been destroyed.

The length of the war

Trump’s claims: Trump initially said the war would take mere weeks.

“It’s always been about a four-week process so – as strong as it is, it’s a big country, it’ll take four weeks – or less,” The Daily Mail quoted him as saying in an interview in early March. In a New York Times interview the same day, he said, “Well, we intended four to five weeks,” adding, “It won’t be difficult.” In late March, he said, “We estimated it would take approximately four to six weeks to achieve our mission” and that they were “really a lot ahead of schedule.”

Trump also made a series of vaguer claims that the war would end fast, saying in March that it would be over “pretty quickly” and in May that “we’re gonna end that war very quickly.”

How the claims fell apart: Like previous US wars, this one has proved much tougher to conclude than the president in power first suggested. Nearly five months after Trump launched the war, the fighting continues – and he threatened an escalation on Wednesday, vowing to destroy one Iranian bridge or power plant every time Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz

Trump’s claims: On July 13, Trump posted that “the Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran,” declaring that the US would be “from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT.’” He said in an interview the same day: “Well, we’re taking over the strait. They have nothing.” Then, on Sunday, Trump made an even stronger claim: “We control the strait. They [Iran] don’t control anything.”

How the claims fell apart: As was obvious when Trump made these claims, Iran retains significant control over the Strait of Hormuz even as the US Navy imposes a blockade against ships sailing to or from Iranian ports. Iran claimed responsibility for attacks on ships in the area of the strait on Monday and Tuesday; the Joint Maritime Information Center led by the US Navy reported Tuesday that commercial traffic in the strait “fell to a three-week low” during the last 48 hours, that Iranian “harassment activity” against merchant activity in the strait “persisted,” and that “recent attacks on tankers in Omani waters further influenced operator behaviour and contributed to significantly reduced traffic density.”

Oil prices

Trump’s claims: Trump has tried in recent weeks to promote a triumphant narrative about oil prices.

In the second half of June, amid the ceasefire with Iran in place at the time, he boasted that “oil prices are way down” and declared that “it’s soon going to be at the number that it was four months ago,” before he launched the war in late February. He then claimed on July 8, “You see the oil prices are lower than they were when I started” and that “the prices of oil are dropping like a rock”; he conceded that the resumption of violence that day would be sending prices “up a little bit,” but he added, “This will end very quickly.” And he asserted in a social media post Sunday that oil prices were among those “dropping FAST.”

How the claims fell apart: Oil prices were indeed down significantly in late June and the beginning of July from the wartime highs of March and April, and they did briefly fall below prewar levels. But then they spiked again after the ceasefire collapsed and the US and Iran resumed regularly attacking each other. Neither the violence nor the increase in oil prices ended quickly after July 8, the day Trump said he thought the ceasefire was over; oil prices were increasing, not “dropping FAST,” last week and early this week.

On Wednesday, the global oil benchmark Brent crude settled at $94.07 a barrel, up about 3.4% on the day; that was its highest settle level since June 8. The US benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude settled at $86.83 a barrel, up about 3% on the day; that was its highest settle level since June 11. Both Brent and WTI crude were more expensive than they were when Trump started the war and when he returned to office in January 2025.

Trump vowed again during a Wednesday speech in Georgia that the price of oil is “going to be tumbling down” as it was three weeks ago. He urged Americans to “just give me a little time.”

CNN’s John Towfighi contributed to this article.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Doctor convicted of attempted manslaughter of his wife wants a new trial, saying jurors may have been confused

(CNN) — Along the steep Pali Puka trail last spring, the verdant beauty of Oahu spilled out to the Pacific Ocean from the scenic path where Gerhardt and Arielle Konig stood. On that high ridge, they fought for their lives – emotionally, then physically – each later would testify.A trip intended to celebrate Arielle’s birthday – and maybe salvage their troubled marriage – ended with the couple, who share two young children, on the ground attacking each other. He bashed her in the face with a rock. She bit him and squeezed his testicles.Who started the melee became the question at the heart of an attempted second-degree murder charge filed against Gerhardt Konig.Prosecutors said the defendant wanted to kill his spouse and tried to push her off the cliff. But after an emotional, 10-day trial a year later that saw husband, wife and one of Gerhardt Konig’s children from a prior marriage on the stand, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of attempted manslaughter.At Konig’s request, a judge on Friday heard arguments on whether a new jury should hear the case because of what two jurors in news interviews revealed soon after issuing the verdict that could send Konig to prison for up to 20 years, along with concern one juror may have communicated about the case outside the jury room during deliberations.“Jury irregularities call into serious question the integrity of this verdict,” defense attorney Thomas Otake wrote in an appeal filed in May.At Friday’s hearing, Judge Paul Wong said the court would question jurors about any outside communications during deliberations before deciding whether to grant a new trial. The court will revisit the matter on September 11.“The court must ascertain the extent of the influence,” Wong said.Whether defendant intended to kill is at issueFinding insufficient evidence to convict Konig of attempted murder, the jury found him guilty of attempted manslaughter, with his actions – even if extremely dangerous – motivated by “extreme mental or emotional disturbance.”Ruling out an attempted murder charge was a relief to Konig’s legal team and left open the possibility Konig could be sentenced to probation, with no jail time at all.“We are thankful that they did not convict him of attempted murder, which would have been life in prison,” Otake told reporters shortly after the verdict was announced.Still, the defense attorney immediately promised an appeal based on unspecified concerns about the judge’s rulings during the trial. When his motion dropped a month later, however, it wasn’t the judge Otake took issue with:The request for a new trial was based on what jurors said after the verdict.“Somebody was definitely hurt; it was a bodily injury to the head that could result in serious bodily injury,” foreperson Makalapua Atkins told CNN affiliate East Idaho News about jurors’ state of mind in deliberations.“The intent to kill is improbable to us based on the evidence presented,” Atkins said in an interview after the verdict with True Crime AZ, adding, “The only people who know what happened on that cliff are the two that were involved.”But under Hawaii law, Konig’s defense team has argued, even a conviction for attempted manslaughter would require the jury to find the defendant was trying to kill the victim – and the foreperson said they didn’t.“The jury did not unanimously believe that Dr. Konig had an intent to kill his wife,” Atkins confirmed in a sworn statement to the defense attorney accompanying his appeal. Prosecutors also asked Atkins to sit down with them for an interview, but she declined, their response to the request for appeal states. CNN could not reach Atkins for comment.Another juror, identified publicly only as Juror #3, also said he had not been convinced Gerhardt Konig intended to take Arielle’s life that day.“I don’t know if he was trying to kill his wife, personally,” he told Honolulu TV station KHON in an on-camera interview. “I do know that it was the capacity to kill his wife, personally. That how I felt about it.”If jurors didn’t understand what was required for conviction, Konig’s attorneys argued, it opens the door to a new trial.“Conduct that could result in death or has the capacity to kill may be reckless, but it is not necessarily intentional, and Hawaiʻi does not recognize attempted reckless manslaughter,” Konig’s defense attorneys said, with the emphasis, in a court filing.Did the jury understand the law?“The jurors’ public remarks raise a serious concern that the verdict may rest upon findings inconsistent with the convicted offense,” Konig’s defense attorneys said in a motion for a new trial.The judge’s instructions – 33 in all – were a lot to digest. They laid out a menu of five possible charges – from second-degree attempted murder to third-degree assault – explaining the order in which they had to be considered and steps to evaluating each.“If and only if you unanimously find that all the elements of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree have been proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, and you unanimously find that the defendant was not acting in Self-Defense, then you must consider the affirmative defense of Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance,” one instruction states.In their response to Konig’s request for a new trial, prosecutors did not try to rebut the claim jurors were confused, instead saying it doesn’t matter. The “internal thought process” of the jury, even when revealed voluntarily by jurors, should not be reconsidered by the court after a verdict, prosecutor Joel Garner stated.“Jurors can change their mind, but what matters is whether the verdict was unanimous at the time it was rendered,” the prosecution wrote. “In this case it was, even according to the on-the-record statements of the foreperson – and therefore a later declaration disagreeing with the verdicts is not a sufficient basis to grant a motion for a new trial.”Juror may have revealed their discussions during deliberationKonig’s defense also raises another concern about the jury: that one member may have been communicating about the case to an outsider while deliberations were still underway.“I’ve been texting with one of the juror’s (sic) and they’re going for count 3 attempted manslaughter,” says a message posted to the live chat of trial coverage by the Law&Crime Network.The comment was first spotted by someone – whose name is redacted in the court filing – and emailed to prosecutors, who alerted the judge.“What caught my attention is that this commenter specifically predicted the verdict – that Konig would be convicted of attempted manslaughter – before it was announced,” the person wrote in the email.Whether it was legitimate or a hoax has not been proven, but Konig’s defense attorneys say the fact that it correctly foreshadowed the verdict should give it credibility.“Although the full scope of any such communication remains unknown, these circumstances raise substantial concerns regarding the jury’s exposure to outside influence or extraneous information during deliberations,” the defense team wrote.Prosecutors say even if the comment was authentic, it doesn’t require a new trial unless there is proof that “external influence” swayed the decision of the juror.“A juror disclosing where the jury stands is certainly problematic, but on its own it does not indicate that the other party influenced that juror in any way,” Garner said in their court filing.Could a new trial backfire?If Konig, who is in jail pending his sentencing, is granted a new trial, it could come with a big risk: He could face the attempted murder charge again after beating it in his first trial.Otake is trying to make sure that doesn’t happen.“The jury did not convict Dr. Konig of attempted murder in the second degree,” the defense lawyer wrote, arguing the conviction on the lesser charge amounts to an attempted murder acquittal since the jury could not convict Konig of both.“Any retrial must therefore be limited to offenses consistent with the jury’s verdict and the constitutional protections against double jeopardy,” Otake added.The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney in Honolulu has not said whether it would try to pursue an attempted murder conviction again if a retrial is ordered.Either way, the legal fight between Gerhardt and Arielle Konig will continue, as their divorce is still pending.“The marriage,” Arielle Konig wrote in her divorce petition, “is irretrievably broken.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story