BREAKING: Trump explains in INTERVIEW exactly what happened when he called off the Iranian attack last night

Trump gave a more full understanding of what happened last night when he called off the retaliatory attack on the Iranians in an interview with Chuck Todd:



Trump makes clear that he never ‘green-lighted’ the attack just to turn around and stop it, as it was reported last night. He said these attacks are never green-lighted until the very end. He also said there were no planes in the air, as was reported.

Trump said they put a plan together, subject to his approval, and when they presented him with the plan he asked about casualties. It was at that time one of his generals double checked the potential casualty count and told him it would be 150 dead.

It was at that point Trump felt that it was too disproportionate and called off the mission.

Watch the video for more…

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

121 thoughts on “BREAKING: Trump explains in INTERVIEW exactly what happened when he called off the Iranian attack last night

  1. Maybe Chris Wallace will change his tune now that the story that everyone in the media AGAIN bought 1st round wasnt true. Of course Shep Smith is still throwing shade.

  2. With the way things look at home economically, I doubt Trump risks a war. We’re talking ourselves into a recession by asking for rate cuts and this would be the last thing he needs.

  3. Obama killed using drones
    Trump doesn’t wanna kill over a drone

    When will the Nobel Committee ask BO for the Peas prize back so they can give to Trump?

    1. @independentlibservative

      When will the Nobel Committee ask BO for the Peas prize back so they can give to Trump?

      I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

  4. Why are there still leakers in the White House–and in the Situation Room, too?

    Or did the NY Times simply invent the story, something they do a lot of over there.

  5. Another thing that I think may have come into play is the interaction with China ahead of the G-20 summit.

    Trump needs to make a deal on trade with China if he wants to get re-elected, and attacking Iran would probably not be very good with North Korea / China.

    He definitely has a lot to think about.

  6. I wondered why this was leaked at first. That he’s openly discussing it now himself is good politics. This decision makes him sound far more humane than his opponents want everyone to believe. That’s smart for both international and domestic politics. And it IS humane. A proportional response makes sense…. up to a point. When/if it comes time to destroy Iranian nukes or nuclear production facilities 150,000 or more Iranian deaths would be tolerable. They must never get nukes, ever.

  7. I so rarely agree with Chris Wallace, but with the very mixed messages coming from Trump, yesterday in his comments, his twitter messages this morning, and the upcoming interviews this weekend are very disjointed. I’m disturbed that Trump’s statements are seriously disjointed. I understand that national security is important, but Trump is really badly handling this whole thing. I know Trump wants transparency which is important, but he seems totally oblivious on this issue.

      1. I agree. Trump is crazy like a fox. He is keeping everyone off balance. Whether on purpose or by accident, just brilliant!

    1. Trump is not a conservative on foreign policy, and I wish the silly comparisons to Reagan would cease for good after his mishandling of the drone incident. He reminds me of Carter, who always wanted to negotiate when we were beyond the point of negotiation and needed to use force.

      1. Reagan fundamentally understood the relationship between strategic uses of power and deterrence. Deterrence also created a more favorable environment for diplomacy.

  8. Mark Levin said tonight that he believes he is zeroing in on who the leakers are in the Trump admin. I think the top of the list has to be FBI Director Christopher Wray. What do you think?

    1. From The Washington Post:

      This account of how Trump approved and then abruptly canceled a military operation against Iran is based on interviews with more than 25 White House officials, lawmakers, congressional aides, military officials and others familiar with the process. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

    2. @scope-formerly-pinecone
      I believe the WH has a way of “leaking” it’s own info depending on whether it’s favourable or not to the President.

  9. Robert Satloff tweet-

    “In DC, the #Iran story may be that #Trump opted for restraint over belligerence; in #Tehran and around the #MiddleEast, the story is that the US leader who imposed ‘maximum pressure’ is now virtually begging @khamenei_ir to talk with him.”

    I have no idea who the above tweeter is, but I have no doubt that in the Middle East, that is the major story going around.

    Yes I’m going there. Didn’t Trump do the same with North Korea? He sent our military to the North Koren territory, he rattled the sabres, and then backed off to the point that I’m looking to talk to Kim Jung Un, he’s going to make a deal with me, that has never happened.

    I support Trump on his domestic policy, but he is starting to look very weak on the national security front.

    With his lack of actions with North Korea first, and now with his lack of actions to respond to Iran, I have no reason to believe that other nations would take him seriously. In my opinion he is also going to lose the trade fight with China because of his lack of resolve and strength.

    Someone else posting here called Trump an isolationist, which brings to mind the Ron Paul Libertarians, who were real, true isolationists. Unless he has something else up his sleeve to deal with Iran, other than more useless sanctions, in my opinion he will start bleeding supporters. There are a lot of us that are tired of being dishrags to those that hate us.

    1. I suspect that by the time this is actually over, Iran will wish that Trump had just ordered the destruction of the missile site.

      Increased sanctions will cost Iran far more!

  10. Essentially, Trump can’t win no matter what he does. If he attacks anything he is a “war monger”. If he does nothing he’s a weakling “Jimmy Carter”. Pretty much any move he makes or doesn’t make will garner criticism. I kind of like the way he deals with our enemies. He leaves them wondering just what this guy is going to do, and that is a good thing, in my opinion. I think he keeps the nasty world leaders off balance BECAUSE he is a crazy SOB. He basically let Iran know that he was ready to give the green light and mere minutes saved their bacon. They might not be so lucky next time. They are on notice, and NK, China, Russia and others are watching. They don’t know what to make of him. And also, I think Kerry and Obama are working with Iran to try to provoke him into doing something that might cost him the election, so there’s that. I don’t always stick up for Trump, but I do think he is very good at keeping the enemies guessing.

    1. I pretty much agree with you.

      I think Trump, with some sad trepidation, made the right decision in this instance.

      Why, because like Trump said, the military strike that would have killed 150 people, and would be a over-reaction response to a shooting down of an unmanned drone, which the radical Left Trump hating media would have used against him as someone not of proper intelligent coherent faculty to be the President, Commander-n-Chief of the armed forces – not that Pres Trump or we the American citizens care 1 iota about what the media thinks and says.

      I liken it to a more of a JFK cautious approach to using the US Military in a rash over-reaction in such a critical decision making instance, which needs to be of a measured and proportionate response.

  11. I so rarely agree with Chris Wallace, but with the very mixed messages coming from Trump, yesterday in his comments, his twitter messages this morning, and the upcoming interviews this weekend are very disjointed. I’m disturbed that Trump’s statements are seriously disjointed. I understand that national security is important, but Trump is really badly handling this whole thing. I know Trump wants transparency which is important, but he seems totally oblivious on this issue.

      1. I agree. Trump is crazy like a fox. He is keeping everyone off balance. Whether on purpose or by accident, just brilliant!

    1. Trump is not a conservative on foreign policy, and I wish the silly comparisons to Reagan would cease for good after his mishandling of the drone incident. He reminds me of Carter, who always wanted to negotiate when we were beyond the point of negotiation and needed to use force.

      1. Reagan fundamentally understood the relationship between strategic uses of power and deterrence. Deterrence also created a more favorable environment for diplomacy.

  12. Mark Levin said tonight that he believes he is zeroing in on who the leakers are in the Trump admin. I think the top of the list has to be FBI Director Christopher Wray. What do you think?

    1. From The Washington Post:

      This account of how Trump approved and then abruptly canceled a military operation against Iran is based on interviews with more than 25 White House officials, lawmakers, congressional aides, military officials and others familiar with the process. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

    2. @scope-formerly-pinecone
      I believe the WH has a way of “leaking” it’s own info depending on whether it’s favourable or not to the President.

  13. I believed that Trump would not go around the globe and start needless wars. I also believe that he would be tough and strong, and would protect this nation, and that of our allies by swiftly breaking stuff from our enemies, and get out as fast as we went in., and would never engage in “nation building” or trying to “spread Democracy” throughout the globe. I apparently was wrong. I’m watching the Libertarians celebrate his weakness.

  14. Robert Satloff tweet-

    “In DC, the #Iran story may be that #Trump opted for restraint over belligerence; in #Tehran and around the #MiddleEast, the story is that the US leader who imposed ‘maximum pressure’ is now virtually begging @khamenei_ir to talk with him.”

    I have no idea who the above tweeter is, but I have no doubt that in the Middle East, that is the major story going around.

    Yes I’m going there. Didn’t Trump do the same with North Korea? He sent our military to the North Koren territory, he rattled the sabres, and then backed off to the point that I’m looking to talk to Kim Jung Un, he’s going to make a deal with me, that has never happened.

    I support Trump on his domestic policy, but he is starting to look very weak on the national security front.

    With his lack of actions with North Korea first, and now with his lack of actions to respond to Iran, I have no reason to believe that other nations would take him seriously. In my opinion he is also going to lose the trade fight with China because of his lack of resolve and strength.

    Someone else posting here called Trump an isolationist, which brings to mind the Ron Paul Libertarians, who were real, true isolationists. Unless he has something else up his sleeve to deal with Iran, other than more useless sanctions, in my opinion he will start bleeding supporters. There are a lot of us that are tired of being dishrags to those that hate us.

    1. I suspect that by the time this is actually over, Iran will wish that Trump had just ordered the destruction of the missile site.

      Increased sanctions will cost Iran far more!

  15. OT: A really ugly woman (E. Jean Carroll) is now accusing Trump of assaulting her in her latest book.

    So I guess democrats are down to the sexual assault attack like on Roy Moore, Kavanaugh and other conservatives. Trump says he never met her.

  16. One of the funniest displays of TDS, especially from leftists, is how they are convinced in their hearts that Trump is a warmonger and Hitler and just ready to start the killing. They’re online claiming that he’s trying to start the next war and anxious to attack Iran… just goes to show how delusional they are. Trump has always been more of an isolationist. Trump doesn’t want to have the USA mired down in a war with Iran and have that be his legacy.

    But leftist just can’t help themselves. Despite contrary information, they can only see Trump through their deranged glasses.

  17. Essentially, Trump can’t win no matter what he does. If he attacks anything he is a “war monger”. If he does nothing he’s a weakling “Jimmy Carter”. Pretty much any move he makes or doesn’t make will garner criticism. I kind of like the way he deals with our enemies. He leaves them wondering just what this guy is going to do, and that is a good thing, in my opinion. I think he keeps the nasty world leaders off balance BECAUSE he is a crazy SOB. He basically let Iran know that he was ready to give the green light and mere minutes saved their bacon. They might not be so lucky next time. They are on notice, and NK, China, Russia and others are watching. They don’t know what to make of him. And also, I think Kerry and Obama are working with Iran to try to provoke him into doing something that might cost him the election, so there’s that. I don’t always stick up for Trump, but I do think he is very good at keeping the enemies guessing.

    1. I pretty much agree with you.

      I think Trump, with some sad trepidation, made the right decision in this instance.

      Why, because like Trump said, the military strike that would have killed 150 people, and would be a over-reaction response to a shooting down of an unmanned drone, which the radical Left Trump hating media would have used against him as someone not of proper intelligent coherent faculty to be the President, Commander-n-Chief of the armed forces – not that Pres Trump or we the American citizens care 1 iota about what the media thinks and says.

      I liken it to a more of a JFK cautious approach to using the US Military in a rash over-reaction in such a critical decision making instance, which needs to be of a measured and proportionate response.

  18. And again, thank you Jimmy Carter.

    What’s the odds this lack of action will get Americans killed as Iran becomes more emboldened? This situation is very similar to how Japan got involved in WWII- American sanctions&blockades resulted in Japan striking the U.S.. Iran is, and will, do the same thing. Eventually we have to hit them and hit them hard.

    1. President Carter made one of history’s great blunders in abandoning the Shah. President Trump’s blunder in calling off the limited military operation against Iran is not of the same magnitude, though it will likely embolden Iran and other hostile states.

    2. You are assuming that just because Trump has not hit back at Iran yet, that he won’t.

      Trump will make Iran pay, one way or another.

    1. Yea, our recent history of intervention to supposedly stop a mad dictator killing his own people doesn’t have great long term outcomes for the most part….Thanks to Obama and Hillary Clinton – Libya is ruled by 30 different ISIS warlords today, tens of thousands have been killed since removing Gaddafi too. But those are Democrats, so the media could care less about that scandal during Obama’s so called “scandal free” time in office…

      1. Among some Arabs Gaddafi was a pretty nice guy,and quiet ever since Reagan bombed and killed on of his family members.

        1. @bigsir74

          Among some Arabs Gaddafi was a pretty nice guy,and quiet ever since Reagan bombed and killed on of his family members.

          Not to mention his voluntary disarmament after we took down Saddam, which was at least one positive result of the Iraq war.

          I’m under no illusions about him having been a positive force in the world, by any means, and certainly didn’t shed any tears when he was killed. But at that point, he was a past threat which had long since been thoroughly contained.

        2. What Reagan did did put him into line pretty quickly. He wasn’t a saint by any stretch, but he was better than what took over his country once he was killed. He also was giving a large percent of what his country made on oil sales to the people of his country in cash money.

          1. I still do not understand why Obama and the Clintons were not held accountable for those American lives that were lost.

    2. And the Obama administration who illegally funneled BILLIONS of dollars to Iran….

        1. FYI, I only down vote people who troll or those acting like TDS’ers. If you looking at my profile of votes, it only shows the down votes first. It does not show the votes by date. I have given VASTLY more up votes than down.

  19. He never Green lighted the attack period.I am just grateful he didn’t go this far with North Korea and then had concerns about injuring someone.

    1. Your comment sounds like you don’t know that the military has plans to attack or liberate every country in the world, even Andorra, Lichtenstein and the Vatican.

      Some countries plans, like Iran, get updated more often than others. Andorra, Lichtenstein and the Vatican are a much lower priority for updates.

  20. With the way things look at home economically, I doubt Trump risks a war. We’re talking ourselves into a recession by asking for rate cuts and this would be the last thing he needs.

  21. I believed that Trump would not go around the globe and start needless wars. I also believe that he would be tough and strong, and would protect this nation, and that of our allies by swiftly breaking stuff from our enemies, and get out as fast as we went in., and would never engage in “nation building” or trying to “spread Democracy” throughout the globe. I apparently was wrong. I’m watching the Libertarians celebrate his weakness.

  22. The only important explanation I saw was the Four tweeted bit of information by the President.Its always nice to get a do over after everyone on the staff has corrected your explanation,and it still sounds fishy.Pick a number from 1 through 150 Mr. President what number would have been the green light. I do not believe you had a number in mind because there was none.Something else was bothering you,like fear of losing the election.

    1. He obviously has changed his story. If this latest story is true, which I doubt, he has incompetent people working for him.

      1. The President himself and alone just ruined the perfect scenario for giving Iran a good pounding.Now Iran watches as our President bumbles his way through a very confusing explanation.What do you think RIP.

  23. Praying for Trump to be wise in handling Iran- the military industrial complex wants another war.

    1. Praying for Trump to be wise in handling Iran- the military industrial complex wants another war.

      The Iranians aren’t exactly singing Lennon tunes and handing out daisies, either.

  24. Obama killed using drones
    Trump doesn’t wanna kill over a drone

    When will the Nobel Committee ask BO for the Peas prize back so they can give to Trump?

    1. @independentlibservative

      When will the Nobel Committee ask BO for the Peas prize back so they can give to Trump?

      I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

  25. OT: A really ugly woman (E. Jean Carroll) is now accusing Trump of assaulting her in her latest book.

    So I guess democrats are down to the sexual assault attack like on Roy Moore, Kavanaugh and other conservatives. Trump says he never met her.

  26. Maybe Chris Wallace will change his tune now that the story that everyone in the media AGAIN bought 1st round wasnt true. Of course Shep Smith is still throwing shade.

  27. Another thing that I think may have come into play is the interaction with China ahead of the G-20 summit.

    Trump needs to make a deal on trade with China if he wants to get re-elected, and attacking Iran would probably not be very good with North Korea / China.

    He definitely has a lot to think about.

  28. Why are there still leakers in the White House–and in the Situation Room, too?

    Or did the NY Times simply invent the story, something they do a lot of over there.

  29. One of the funniest displays of TDS, especially from leftists, is how they are convinced in their hearts that Trump is a warmonger and Hitler and just ready to start the killing. They’re online claiming that he’s trying to start the next war and anxious to attack Iran… just goes to show how delusional they are. Trump has always been more of an isolationist. Trump doesn’t want to have the USA mired down in a war with Iran and have that be his legacy.

    But leftist just can’t help themselves. Despite contrary information, they can only see Trump through their deranged glasses.

  30. I wondered why this was leaked at first. That he’s openly discussing it now himself is good politics. This decision makes him sound far more humane than his opponents want everyone to believe. That’s smart for both international and domestic politics. And it IS humane. A proportional response makes sense…. up to a point. When/if it comes time to destroy Iranian nukes or nuclear production facilities 150,000 or more Iranian deaths would be tolerable. They must never get nukes, ever.

  31. That’s entirely different than the accusations that he approved of the strikes and changed his mind at the last second (10 minutes prior).

      1. @rjp977 No he didn’t. It’s exactly what he said before. You must be referring to what the NYT said…which isn’t Trump.

        Obviously he had to give the go to prepare for an attack, but it wouldn’t have happened without the green light. It doesn’t even matter because he has the ability to alter course.

        1. Check again. He said 10 minutes before the strike in his tweet. Or is the New York Times writing his tweets now.

          1. @rjp977 There was no discrepancy there, so I assumed you were talking about him giving the green light then changing his mind.

            Even in this clip he said they came in half an hour before he would give the green light when he asked the question. He was told they’d get back with him. He didn’t say how long it was before they got back with him. Are you seriously going to call him a liar over ten or fifteen minutes?

            Ok…so maybe you’re talking about ten minutes before the strike and not ten minutes before the green light. That maybe you think he pulled the plug when they were already in the air. If that’s the case….who cares? What difference does it make? He can pull the plug any damn time he pleases as long as it’s not too late to stop the mission.
            …..
            …..
            ….
            …. (trying to fix the format here)

              1. @rjp977 That is not what I said, and you haven’t cleared up exactly what you say he is lying about.

                1. He changed the timing of his decision in the clip and the idea that he didn’t know about civilian casualties until right before the response was carried out is BS.

                2. @rjp977 He didn’t change the timing. In his tweet he said ten minutes. In the video he said they came in and told him it was ready 30 minutes beforehand. Then the guy said he’d get back to him. It is an untold length of time as to how long passed while getting the information. Even if it took one minute you’re making a big deal out of 20 minutes.

                  I would sure like to know what bug you had installed to know what was told to him when and where. Even if he did already know it’s much ado over nothing because he’s the President and can call off the attack any time he pleases. It’s possible that what he told us is for PR, but so what. Everything he did is well within his power.

          2. You are right RJP he does his tweets and gets it right but still a bad decision because he had already been briefed and had those Casualty numbers.This morning he is in so much doo doo he has to be debriefed from his own tweeting,to go on Chuck Todd to tell a different story.

        2. @kong1967 Trump, himself, was the one who said he stopped the strike 10 minutes before it was launched. It was in his third tweet quoted in the other thread:

          ….On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not….

          1. @cws And? He said in the video they didn’t even tell him how many people would die until within half an hour of the planned launch. I just don’t understand the quibble over 10 or 15 minutes. It doesn’t even matter. In both accounts he said he called off the strike just before it was planned to launch.

            Where is this big lie you guys keep accusing him of?

            1. @kong1967 You said,

              That’s entirely different than the accusations that he approved of the strikes and changed his mind at the last second (10 minutes prior).

              I was simply pointing out that it was in fact Trump himself who had put forth that exact timeline. That was the extent of my point.

              1. @cws Oh. My point had nothing to do with the timeline….or wasn’t intended to. The NYT made it seem like the strike was already a go and Trump had to put a stop to it. But Trump made it clear that he had not given the go as of yet.

  32. So what is the “proportional” response for shooting down a drone worth 130 millions?

    1. 1. Demanding that they pay to replace it.
      2. Freeze some of their assets to pay for it.

      Although it might be a more effective deterrent if the house of the commander who ordered the launch of the SAM suddenly blew up and that would take more than a few days to pull off.

  33. And again, thank you Jimmy Carter.

    What’s the odds this lack of action will get Americans killed as Iran becomes more emboldened? This situation is very similar to how Japan got involved in WWII- American sanctions&blockades resulted in Japan striking the U.S.. Iran is, and will, do the same thing. Eventually we have to hit them and hit them hard.

    1. President Carter made one of history’s great blunders in abandoning the Shah. President Trump’s blunder in calling off the limited military operation against Iran is not of the same magnitude, though it will likely embolden Iran and other hostile states.

    2. You are assuming that just because Trump has not hit back at Iran yet, that he won’t.

      Trump will make Iran pay, one way or another.

    1. Yea, our recent history of intervention to supposedly stop a mad dictator killing his own people doesn’t have great long term outcomes for the most part….Thanks to Obama and Hillary Clinton – Libya is ruled by 30 different ISIS warlords today, tens of thousands have been killed since removing Gaddafi too. But those are Democrats, so the media could care less about that scandal during Obama’s so called “scandal free” time in office…

    2. And the Obama administration who illegally funneled BILLIONS of dollars to Iran….

        1. FYI, I only down vote people who troll or those acting like TDS’ers. If you looking at my profile of votes, it only shows the down votes first. It does not show the votes by date. I have given VASTLY more up votes than down.

  34. He never Green lighted the attack period.I am just grateful he didn’t go this far with North Korea and then had concerns about injuring someone.

    1. Your comment sounds like you don’t know that the military has plans to attack or liberate every country in the world, even Andorra, Lichtenstein and the Vatican.

      Some countries plans, like Iran, get updated more often than others. Andorra, Lichtenstein and the Vatican are a much lower priority for updates.

  35. The only important explanation I saw was the Four tweeted bit of information by the President.Its always nice to get a do over after everyone on the staff has corrected your explanation,and it still sounds fishy.Pick a number from 1 through 150 Mr. President what number would have been the green light. I do not believe you had a number in mind because there was none.Something else was bothering you,like fear of losing the election.

    1. He obviously has changed his story. If this latest story is true, which I doubt, he has incompetent people working for him.

      1. The President himself and alone just ruined the perfect scenario for giving Iran a good pounding.Now Iran watches as our President bumbles his way through a very confusing explanation.What do you think RIP.

  36. Praying for Trump to be wise in handling Iran- the military industrial complex wants another war.

    1. Praying for Trump to be wise in handling Iran- the military industrial complex wants another war.

      The Iranians aren’t exactly singing Lennon tunes and handing out daisies, either.

  37. That’s entirely different than the accusations that he approved of the strikes and changed his mind at the last second (10 minutes prior).

      1. @rjp977 No he didn’t. It’s exactly what he said before. You must be referring to what the NYT said…which isn’t Trump.

        Obviously he had to give the go to prepare for an attack, but it wouldn’t have happened without the green light. It doesn’t even matter because he has the ability to alter course.

    1. 1. Demanding that they pay to replace it.
      2. Freeze some of their assets to pay for it.

      Although it might be a more effective deterrent if the house of the commander who ordered the launch of the SAM suddenly blew up and that would take more than a few days to pull off.

Comments are closed.