As twin operations Epic Fury and Lion’s Roar began, The New York Times published at least three major reports on how the decision to go to war was made and what were the early war goals. All these bombshell reports are based on anonymous sources. The result was two contradictory accounts and one obscure account that misses key details regarding important aspects of the war with Iran. A comparison of these reports shows that they are incredible, and not in the good sense of the term.
Anonymous Sourcing Guidelines
Relying on anonymous sources is an accepted, sometimes necessary practice, in line with professional ethics. Anonymity is especially important in reporting on politics. According to the Times’ own guidelines, anonymity helps protect sources when knowledge sharing may risk their lives, careers, or freedom. But using anonymous sources can also erode the newspaper’s credibility as readers might not believe a story based on unnamed sources. Using anonymous sources should be a last resort and requires the approval of top editors. Other major outlets such as AP and the Washington Post have similar policies.
The Times asks its journalists to make sure the information they convey through anonymous sources is sound and newsworthy, “not just spin or speculation… not just color or embellishment.” The Times should not be perceived as serving someone else’s agenda.
And yet, the Times’ reliance on anonymous sources seems to have achieved the opposite of what the newspaper had hoped.
Article 1: Israel’s Influence
As CAMERA previously reported, the Times published a Mar. 2, 2026, article titled “How Trump Decided to Go to War.” The report seemed to echo a conspiracist’s narrative, suggesting that Israel holds inordinate sway over the U.S. government. Describing the chain of events that led to Trump’s decision to attack Iran, the authors wrote that Prime Minister Netanyahu was determined to go to war and convinced Trump to do so, despite Trump’s earlier “misgivings.”
This specific article was based on:
Accounts of people with direct knowledge of the deliberations, as well as those on all sides of the debate, including diplomats from the region, Israeli and American administration officials, the president’s advisers, congressional lawmakers and defense and intelligence officials. Almost all spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions and operational details.
The Times summarized the timeline, “The U.S. decision to strike Iran was a victory for Mr. Netanyahu, who had been pushing Mr. Trump for months on the need to hit what he argued was a weakened regime.”
The takeaway was clear: Israel made the U.S. go to war.
Article 2: Trump’s Decision
The Times published a second, related article on Apr. 7, 2026. This article also began with the same conspiracist tone as the March 2 article, highlighting alleged Israeli influence and Netanyahu’s meetings with Trump, and especially Israel’s alleged grandiose war plan that described a path toward regime change in Iran. But then, the article shifted to focusing on Trump and his dynamic with his close aides and confidents. The article noted that some of Trump’s closest aides raised concerns about the Israeli plans. The authors claim that Trump listened to his war cabinet but only selectively, hearing what he wanted to hear and made the decision to attack.
This article is part of a book written by the authors. The article is based on “extensive interviews conducted on the condition of anonymity to recount internal discussions and sensitive issues.” It is not clear who the sources are or what their motivation is to speak to journalists.
Contrary to the gist of the earlier article, this report observed, “The reporting underscores how closely Mr. Trump’s hawkish thinking aligned with Mr. Netanyahu’s over many months, more so than even some of the president’s key advisers recognized.”
The takeaway from this article contradicted the takeaway from the Mar. 2 report: the decision to go to war was very much an internal American affair. Israel might have had influence, but ultimately Trump and his aides decided the U.S. will go to war.
Article 3: The Ahmadinejad Plan
The Times published a third related report on May 19, 2026. This report details what is allegedly a part of the Israeli-American regime change plan: installing former Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s leader after the regime collapses. Ahmadinejad had previously clashed with the current Iranian leadership and was placed under what was effectively a house arrest with IRGC members as “bodyguards.” The report alleges the plan was developed by Israel and that Ahmadinejad was “consulted” on it. The Israeli air strike that hit Ahmadinejad’s house was an alleged attempt to free him. Apparently, Ahmadinejad himself viewed it as such.
There are important problems and holes in this report and the reporters themselves admit some of its components are highly unlikely, which raises questions regarding the report’s quality. The reporters concede that “how Mr. Ahmadinejad was recruited to take part remains unknown.” They add: “there are many unanswered questions about how Israel and the United States planned to put Mr. Ahmadinejad in power, and the circumstances surrounding the airstrike that injured him.” They also note that Ahmadinejad was an unlikely choice, given his anti-American and anti-Israel views and past threats to wipe Israel off the map.
Damningly, the reporters never clearly state anything about the anonymous sources they drew on to write this report. From the report itself, it seems that sources included “American officials” and “an associate of Mr. Ahmadinejad.” Anonymity of sources does not necessarily mean obscurity on sources. But in this case, readers are not getting any background.
None of this stops the reporters from suggesting this episode is “further evidence” that regime change was indeed the goal of the war, and that it underscores how flawed was the U.S. and Israel’s decision making.
The key takeaway is that the reporters do not really know the details, and their sources are extremely vague, but they still thought this should be reported.
Anonymous Sources and In/Credibility
The Times was involved in a past controversy surrounding its use of anonymous sources. The picture that emerges from these current reports is not flattering either. Reliance on a last resort journalistic tool led the Times to produce reports that were contradictory regarding the main reason the U.S. went to war with Iran. Another stated as fact something that seems highly implausible, is missing key details, and is based on subjective impressions of a controversial past Iranian leader.
These issues raise important concerns: are these bombshell reports actually credible? Do they serve the sources’ political agenda? Maybe these reports are in/credible in the sense that they report something highly important, but they are otherwise problematic? Readers should be able to trust the news, especially on important issues such as this war. The Times makes it difficult.