‘Killings In Iran Have Stopped’: Is Donald Trump Changing The Story To Dodge War? | World News

US-Iran Tension: US President Donald Trump, signaling that this was a major development at a time when international concerns about the deadly protests in Iran were increasing, said on Thursday that he had received information that the violence in Iran had come to a halt.

Speaking to journalists at the White House, he said he had been informed that “the killing in Iran is stopping, is stopped … and there is no plan for executions”. “I have been told by reliable sources about this. We will find out. I am sure we will be very upset if something like this happens.”

According to the president, the update had reached him only minutes ago. He stated that he had “just received” the report that “killings have stopped” in Iran and said, “Executions have stopped. They will not carry out an execution as many people have talked about in the last few days.”

The comments came after days of repeated warnings that Washington could intervene if Iranian officials continued to execute detained protesters. His words showed that he believed this scenario could be avoided, at least for now.

Asked if his statement meant that US military action against Iran was no longer being considered, Trump said: “Washington will monitor and see, but we will have a very good statement from people who are aware of what’s going on.”

He did not elaborate on what the statement would contain or when it would be released.

Observers said he returned to the same argument several times, repeatedly saying he understood the killings had not stopped and that there would be no executions during the day. Although he did not identify his sources, he appeared to rely on the information and continued to reference it in response to subsequent questions.

His insistence on this issue was seen as remarkable given the harsh language he had previously used when publicly threatening action if Tehran continued executions. While Trump has been briefed by the national security council and is still considering options, his repeated statements are being interpreted as a sign that immediate action may not be forthcoming.

At the same time, the situation left the impression of a president weighing competing impulses. Trump has previously signaled his desire to achieve decisive and visible victories on the world stage, including pointing to what he described as success after a 12-day war in June 2025. However, one must also be cautious about being drawn into a protracted Middle East conflict that could be politically and militarily costly.

Analysis of his comments revealed uncertainty about Washington’s ultimate goal. Trump has demonstrated a limited understanding of the internal dynamics of foreign governments. In the case of Iran, it appeared caught between the appeal of a quick victory and its long-standing reluctance to become involved in an open-ended conflict.

Analysts suggest Trump may seek narrowly defined action that would allow him to claim he was acting to “help” the Iranian people without triggering broader tensions.

Some analysts saw Trump’s statement that the killings had stopped as a possible way to backtrack without appearing to backtrack. In addition to the risks of confrontation with Iran, public distaste for large-scale wars influenced his approach for a long time.

From this perspective, the statement offered a way to ease pressure on immediate military intervention while officially keeping all options on the table.

Even so, there was little sense that the problem was solved. Trump has a history of matching threats with parallel negotiating efforts, especially with Tehran. His comments suggested that while he may be looking for room to maneuver, the coming days could bring more moves, statements or actions as the administration decides how far it wants to go.