On June 15, 2026, The New York Times published a report by Ronen Bergman and David Halbfinger, titled “Israel Counts the Ways That Netanyahu’s Iran Strategy Failed.” Discussing the woes of the Israeli Prime Minister in the wake of the Iran-U.S. Memorandum of Understanding, the authors mention “the perception that Israel had dragged the United States” into the war with Iran. (Emphasis added).
More than mere semantics, the word “perception” is extremely important: it implies The Times’ is changing course on one of its most significant reports on the U.S.-Israel war with Iran. The Times is probably one important reason why the perception that Israel dragged the U.S. to war exists in the first place: a Times report from Mar. 2 – coauthored by several Times’ journalists including Bergman (but not Halbfinger) – pointed at Netanyahu as playing a sizable role in instigating Trump’s decision to attack Iran.
In other words, Bergman and his colleagues argued as fact that Israel did play a major role in getting the U.S. into the war, a claim they made in different ways in various places in the article. But as the term “perception” suggests, the June 15 report no longer ascribes a factual status to that claim.
Within three and a half months, the facts seem to have changed. Why? And no less important, does The Times know the facts when it reports on such important events?
Sourcing might provide a part of the answer. The Times has repeatedly relied on anonymous sources in its reporting on major events and decisions related to the U.S.-Israel war with Iran. In the June 15 report, anonymous sources provide only a part of the evidence, alongside statements by Israeli and American politicians as well as analysts’ insights. However, the Mar. 2 report relies on anonymous sources to a far greater extent.
Relaying on anonymous sources is common journalistic practice. But as The Times’ own guidelines acknowledge, it is regarded as a last resort measure and carries the risk of parroting political agendas or “spins” under the guise of factual reporting. The difference between the March and June reports begs the question: was The Times able to keep politics from tainting what it presents as facts?
Besides the use of sources, there is the timing of the reports. The Mar. 2 report came out only a few days after the war started. But as time progressed, its depiction of Israel’s sway on the administration did not hold – perhaps because it was inaccurate to begin with.
On Apr. 7, two other Times reporters, Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, published their own account of how Trump decided to enter the war. Swan and Haberman also mentioned the Trump-Netanyahu meeting that the Mar. 2 article focuses on but then pivoted to internal White House deliberations. Their article lends much more weight to President Trump, his relations with his aides, and White House dynamics in making the decision to enter the war than the Mar. 2 article. Therefore, in Swan and Haberman’s narrative, Israel’s role is not as significant.
As the war continued, more Times reports undermined the Mar. 2 article’s implication that Israel holds formidable sway over White House decision-making. The relationship between Trump and Netanyahu became strained. On June 2, The Times reported that Trump made Netanyahu abort a strike on Beirut. This led Netanyahu’s political rivals to argue he turned Israel into a “total vassal state” of the U.S., and that he “lost control over Israeli sovereignty.”
On June 8, Bergman, Swan, and Haberman reported that Netanyahu stopped strikes in Iran because Trump told him to. On June 9, Halbfinger reported that Trump said about Netanyahu “He’ll do whatever I want him to do,” and that Netanyahu was being heavily criticized by Israeli politicians for letting Trump make decisions for Israel.
To be sure, The Times cannot tell the future. Reporters could not have known in March 2026 that Trump will sour on Netanyahu and the war. But Trump’s power over Netanyahu and the dynamics of the two leaders’ relationship are not new.
In Oct. 2025, Halbfinger reported on a similar course of events, when Trump seems to be going along with Netanyahu’s wishes, only to later dictate terms to Israel. At the time, Trump’s intervention in matters related to Israel made Netanyahu appear “diminished” compared to Trump, more “like a governor of a state rather than its leader.” Trump’s influence was so strong, that Netanyahu had to declare that “Israel is an independent country,” trying to show he still makes the decisions.
The Times’ own reporting showed that Israel did not have outsized influence on the White House’s war calculations and that the U.S. can exert effective pressure on Israel to the point that Israeli sovereignty seems hollow. Perhaps that is why March’s bold assertions about Israel’s role turned into mere “perception” just a few months later. But this only highlights the importance of the question why did the same publication so confidently asserted in March that Israel led the U.S. into war? Does The Times embellish? Does it uncritically accept politically motivated anonymous sources’ accounts?
One way or another, The Times needs to clarify what it claims actually happened. This is what the paper owes its readers. The question is, does The Times know the facts when it reports on such major events or does it create a narrative that sounds compelling regardless of the facts?