US President Donald Trump has dismissed the idea that the war with Iran exposed any limits to his power, telling Axios that he still believes there are “no limits” to what he can do as president. The remark followed his decision to settle for a far narrower deal with Tehran than the one he originally demanded, and comes as Trump is separately reported to be testing comparisons between himself and history’s most dominant rulers.
Trump entered the conflict insisting on Iran’s unconditional surrender and ended it instead with a memorandum of understanding, according to Axios. He told Axios correspondent Marc Caputo on “” that he had agreed to the narrower deal specifically to stop the war tipping into a global economic depression, while continuing to insist the outcome amounted to total victory.
Claiming no limits: defiant after the deal
Quick answers to key questions
What specific provisions are included in Trump’s Iran deal?⌵
Trump’s Iran deal includes 14 provisions, such as requiring Iran to allow free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the US to end its naval blockade, and Tehran gaining access to at least $300 billion in financing.
Why did Trump decide to settle for a narrower deal with Iran?⌵
Trump settled for a narrower deal to prevent the war from potentially triggering a global economic depression, emphasizing that the war’s escalation could have severe repercussions on global oil supply.
How did Trump justify his claims of victory after the Iran deal?⌵
Trump justified his claims of victory by stating that the military objectives were achieved while maintaining that the memorandum amounts to unconditional surrender, even if the terms differed from his original demands.
What was the reaction from Iran’s leadership regarding the deal?⌵
Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had a negative view of the deal but permitted President Masoud Pezeshkian to sign it, indicating a pragmatic approach despite his reservations.
Should the US citizens be concerned about the financial implications of the Iran deal?⌵
Critics warn that the Iran deal may leave Tehran financially better off, raising concerns among US citizens about its potential long-term effects on national security and economic strategies.
Asked what the war had taught him about the limits of his own power, Trump did not hesitate. “There are no limits,” he said. Pressed further, he added: “I haven’t learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but there are no limits.”
Behind the small print: what the deal actually gives Iran
The gap between Trump’s original demand and the agreement he signed drew direct pushback during the interview. “Beginning of the conflict, you had talked about, you only wanted unconditional surrender,” Caputo said. “And the MOU doesn’t look like unconditional surrender.”
Trump disagreed, insisting “we defeated them totally militarily” and that the memorandum “probably is unconditional surrender.”
The text of the agreement suggests a more complicated picture. It runs to 14 provisions, requiring Iran to allow free passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the US to end its naval blockade, while giving Tehran access to at least 300 billion US dollars in financing, with the removal of existing US sanctions contingent on a final agreement still to come.
The arrangement contains 14 provisions requiring Iran to allow ships to travel freely through the Strait of Hormuz, the US to cease its naval blockade, and Iran to gain access to at least $300 billion in financing, with several provisions advantageous to Iran including funds for rehabilitation and economic development.
Even inside Iran, the agreement was not universally welcomed. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei reportedly held a negative view of the deal but granted permission for President Masoud Pezeshkian to sign it regardless.
signed the MOU after Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei granted permission despite his negative opinion of the peace agreement. MediaiteWashington Examiner
Military bragging rights: the blockade defence
Trump pointed to the part of a campaign the Pentagon had named Operation Epic Fury, as evidence of strength rather than restraint. “We have the most powerful military in the world, by far,” he said.
“Who else could have done a blockade like that? I did a naval blockade where not one ship was able to get through. Some tried. It didn’t last very long.”
Why Trump settled: fears of a depression
When pressed on why he had not pursued a tougher line, Trump bristled at his hawkish critics. “The only way I can get tougher is if I go in there for another two or three weeks and continue to bomb the hell out of ’em,” he said. “Right? But what does that get us? The Strait of Hormuz will not be open.”
He continued: “We wouldn’t have oil for months. As long as you’re dropping bombs, that thing is automatically closed.” Of the wider risk, he said: “This is the kind of thing that could cause a worldwide depression.”
Axios reported that were running low and that a wider oil shock could follow if the strait stayed shut. That private anxiety, Axios said, helps explain why he accepted the deal on offer rather than holding out for the maximalist outcome he had promised before the war began.
The decision appears, for now, to have eased pressure at the pump: US gasoline prices fell this week to their lowest level since the end of March, down more than 50 cents a gallon over the past month, as shipping through the strait resumed.
The average price for a gallon of gas fell to its lowest level since the end of March on Thursday and is down more than 50 cents from a month ago. Fox News
Backlash on the right: ‘very poor advice’
Not everyone in Trump’s own political camp was satisfied. Fox News host Mark Levin dismissed the agreement as effectively indefensible, while his colleague Trey Gowdy argued it would leave Tehran financially better off rather than weaker.
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was blunter still, saying Trump was getting “very poor advice.” Fox News host Mark Levin called it unthinkable, his colleague Trey Gowdy said the deal will make Iran richer, and Sen.
Ted Cruz said Trump is getting “very poor advice.” Vice President JD Vance, who helped negotiate the agreement, pushed back firmly against its critics.
A grander theory: comparisons to history’s strongmen
A separate Axios report published this week suggests the “no limits” remark was not an isolated boast. Trump has reportedly begun describing his power in sweeping historical terms, likening himself to conquerors and strongmen who shaped nations through force of will, and is said to be exploring, through a forthcoming book project, the idea that he could rank as the most dominant leader in history.
Trump is no longer merely testing the limits of the presidency. He is describing power in world-historical terms and entertaining the idea that he may be the most powerful man in history.
Even so, in the same Axios interview, Trump suggested one comparison still troubles him. “I have one primary wish as president,” he said. “I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover,” a reference to the president whose name has become synonymous with the . He reinforced the point on Thursday by sharing a document on Truth Social examining the idea of singularly dominant historical leaders, which he credited to a person he described as a historian of the presidency.
Trump maintains that the war demonstrated the breadth of his power rather than its limits, even as critics on both sides of the political spectrum continue to question the substance of the deal he ultimately signed.
