Tehran media dismisses Trump speech, says US shifting goals after failure

In his address, Trump said the U.S. campaign against the Islamic Republic has significantly weakened Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, while stressing that operations will continue if Tehran does not change course.

By Mardo Soghom, Middle East Forum

The first derisive reaction from Tehran to President Donald Trump’s nationally televised address on April 1, 2026, came from the Tasnim news agency, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

A short commentary appeared less than an hour after the speech.

Using a metaphor of a marksman who misses his shots and then redraws the target around where the bullets landed, Tasnim argued that Trump’s remarks were not an update on battlefield realities but an attempt to redefine objectives to claim success regardless of the outcome.

According to this narrative, the United States initially pursued maximalist goals: regime change in Iran, the installation of a compliant government, the dismantling of Iran’s defensive and nuclear capabilities, and—implicitly—reducing Iran to a state incapable of challenging U.S. influence in the region.

Tasnim also repeated the accusation, widely promoted in Iranian official rhetoric since the start of the war, that Washington ultimately sought to fragment the country.

Control of the Strait of Hormuz later emerged, in this account, as a central operational objective.

These, however, are the objectives ascribed to Washington by Tasnim. Claims such as the alleged plan to partition Iran have been prominently used by Iranian officials to rally domestic support and discourage sympathy for U.S. actions, even as some Iranians have expressed satisfaction at seeing the regime come under sustained military pressure.

In his address, Trump said the U.S. campaign against the Islamic Republic has significantly weakened Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, while stressing that operations will continue if Tehran does not change course.

He presented the strikes as targeted and effective, but made clear the conflict is not over, framing the situation as a choice between de-escalation and further pressure.

“We will continue this campaign until Iran chooses to stand down,” he said, signaling readiness to escalate if the Islamic Republic does not stand down.

Tasnim, however, portrayed the speech as a retreat from earlier aims. It highlighted three points: that Washington now denies regime change was ever an objective, that it suggests Iran’s system has effectively changed without direct intervention, and that it is stepping back from responsibility for reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The commentary rejected U.S. claims of having destroyed Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, pointing instead to continued missile attacks and the unresolved status of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

It argued that the speech amounted to an implicit acknowledgment of U.S. limitations, particularly in securing the strait.

Tasnim framed the address as serving four purposes: acknowledging failure to achieve initial goals, constructing a narrative of success ahead of a possible end to the conflict, signaling an inability to control Hormuz, and responding to domestic criticism in the United States.

Nour News, reflecting views close to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, drew parallels with Trump’s policy toward Ukraine, arguing that he had attempted to strongarm Tehran in a similar fashion but failed.

Echoing Tasnim, it wrote that “after several weeks, not only is there no sign that the initial objectives have been achieved, but clear indications have emerged of a rhetorical retreat and a shift in policy priorities.”

The outlet highlighted what it described as Iran’s pillars of strength, including economic resilience and popular support—two areas that, in reality, remain among the Islamic Republic’s most serious vulnerabilities.

Among the Iranian diaspora, reactions to Trump’s speech were more cautious. Many anti-regime activists appeared relieved that he signaled continued operations and not a ceasefire.

For them, the objective remains the collapse or substantial weakening of the Islamic Republic.

As one Iranian-American commentator wrote on social media, “If this war ends in negotiations with the regime in Tehran, the takeaway for them is that escalation works.”