Fact check: Did trump give a two-week notice to Iran to decide peace and then attack them soon after?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the answer to whether Trump gave a two-week notice to Iran to decide on peace before attacking is complex and contradictory. The sources reveal that Trump did announce a two-week timeline, but the nature and intent of this announcement is disputed.

According to multiple sources, Trump has a documented pattern of using two-week deadlines regarding Iran ^[1]. The analyses indicate that Trump gave Iran a two-week window "to come to their senses" before potential military action ^[2]. However, the most significant revelation comes from Wikipedia sources showing that this "notice" was actually a strategic military deception - the two-week timeframe was used to obfuscate the impending attack, with final mission preparation already underway by June 20th ^[3].

The sources confirm that US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites did occur, with reports of strikes on three nuclear facilities representing a major regional conflict escalation ^{[4] [5]}. However, Trump's history shows a pattern of repeatedly using this timeline without taking action in the past ^[1], and a tendency toward unpredictability and delaying decisions ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial historical context that significantly impacts the interpretation of events. The US-Iran tensions span 70 years of complex history that predates the 2025 strikes ^[7], including Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018 and his consistent stance against Iran's nuclear program.

A critical missing element is the 2020 killing of General Qassem Soleimani, which further deteriorated US-Iran relations and provides essential background for understanding the escalation ^[8]. The analyses also reveal that Trump's approach may have been intended to give diplomacy a chance ^[6], presenting an alternative viewpoint that the timeline was genuinely diplomatic rather than purely deceptive.

International reactions and blame attribution are also missing from the original question. Russia blamed Trump for the Iran nuclear crisis, with some characterizing the approach as "diplomacy at the barrel of the gun" ^[9], indicating significant international opposition to Trump's methods.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading. The framing suggests Trump gave a genuine "peace" ultimatum, when evidence indicates the two-week notice was actually a military deception tactic ^[3]. This represents a fundamental mischaracterization of the events.

The question also oversimplifies Trump's documented pattern of behavior - sources show he has used this exact two-week timeline repeatedly without following through ^[1], suggesting the 2025 strikes may have been an exception to his usual pattern rather than a predictable outcome of his ultimatum.

The timeline presented in the question may be inaccurate - one source specifically states that Trump "struck 2 days later" rather than after the full two-week period ^[2], contradicting the implied sequence in the original question.

Finally, the question lacks acknowledgment of Trump's history of unpredictability and decision delays ^[6], which would be crucial context for anyone seeking to understand whether his threats should be taken at face value or viewed as part of a broader pattern of strategic ambiguity.