Fact Check: Trump Claims US Strikes Ended Israel-Iran War, Comparing It to Hiroshima
What We Know
On June 25, 2025, President Donald Trump made a statement asserting that the recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities effectively ended the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. He controversially compared these strikes to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, claiming, "That hit ended the war" (HuffPost). This statement was made during a NATO summit and followed reports suggesting that U.S. intelligence assessments indicated the strikes had only temporarily set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months, contrary to Trump's assertion of significant, long-term damage (Reuters).
The context of Trump's remarks is crucial. The airstrikes were part of a broader military engagement involving Israel and Iran, which had escalated into a 12-day conflict characterized by extensive airstrikes and missile exchanges. Following the strikes, a ceasefire was established, leading to claims of victory from both sides (New York Times).
Analysis
Trump's claim that the U.S. strikes ended the Israel-Iran war is partially true. The airstrikes did coincide with the establishment of a ceasefire, which suggests that they may have played a role in halting hostilities. However, the assertion that these strikes were decisive in ending the war is contested. Reports indicate that while the airstrikes caused significant destruction, U.S. intelligence suggested that the impact on Iran's nuclear capabilities was limited and only delayed their progress temporarily (HuffPost, Reuters).
The comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is particularly contentious. While both events involved significant military actions that aimed to end conflicts, the scale and consequences of nuclear warfare are vastly different from conventional airstrikes. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 people and marked the end of World War II, whereas the recent strikes, although impactful, did not result in comparable casualties or a definitive end to the conflict (HuffPost, Reuters).
Critics of Trump's analogy argue that it trivializes the historical significance and human cost of the atomic bombings. Furthermore, the reliability of the sources reporting on the effectiveness of the strikes is mixed; while some government officials assert a significant setback to Iran's nuclear program, independent assessments remain skeptical (HuffPost, Reuters).
Conclusion
The claim that U.S. strikes ended the Israel-Iran war, with a comparison to Hiroshima, is partially true. While the strikes coincided with a ceasefire, the assertion that they decisively ended the conflict is debated and lacks strong supporting evidence. The analogy to Hiroshima is controversial and may misrepresent the nature of the recent military actions and their consequences.
