White House Defends Trump's Tough Iran Rhetoric as Key to Ceasefire Deal

The defence came in response to pointed questions from reporters over the President's language, including his warning that an entire civilisation could face destruction if a deal was not reached.

Pressed on whether such rhetoric was appropriate, a reporter asked: "Why is it appropriate for the President of the United States to use that kind of language when talking about civilian targets?"

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back, saying results - not tone - should be the measure of success.

"What the President cares most about is results, and in fact, his very tough rhetoric and his tough negotiating style are what have led to the result that you are all witnessing today," she said.

She added that Iran had acknowledged the pressure itself.

"Iran publicly acknowledging last night that they have agreed or that they wanted this cease fire with the United States because they no longer could tolerate being bombed by our very powerful and lethal military," Leavitt said.

Another reporter raised concerns about the broader implications of the President's statements, noting that past US leaders had framed wars as being against governments, not entire populations.

"How can the President claim that America can ever have the moral high ground if he's threatening to destroy civilisations?" the reporter asked.

Leavitt rejected that framing, pointing instead to the administration's military actions over the past six weeks.

"The President absolutely has the moral high ground over the Iranian terrorist regime," she said, adding that questioning that position was "frankly, insulting."

She argued that the President's warnings were instrumental in shaping the outcome.

"I think it was a very, very strong threat from the President of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a cease fire," Leavitt said.

"It was a very strong threat that led to results," she added.

The administration said Iran ultimately agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz - a key condition set by Washington - after facing a firm deadline backed by the threat of further strikes.

"What did they do? Last night, they agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz," Leavitt said.

She also emphasised that the warnings were backed by real military readiness.

"The Pentagon had a target list that they were ready to hit... if the Iranian regime had not agreed," she said, describing the threat as "not an empty threat by any means."

The White House has linked the rhetoric directly to its broader military campaign, which it says created leverage for diplomacy.

"The President's maximum pressure and the leverage created by the success of Operation Epic Fury led to the Iranian regime asking for and ultimately agreeing to a ceasefire proposal with the United States," Leavitt said.

At the same time, officials acknowledged that the ceasefire remains unstable.

"This is a fragile truce. Ceasefires are fragile by nature," Leavitt said, cautioning that disruptions could occur as the agreement is implemented.

She noted that damage to Iran's command and control systems during US strikes could complicate communication within the country, affecting compliance in the early stages.

The administration has now entered a two-week negotiation phase, with talks expected to focus on long-term security arrangements, including Iran's nuclear programme.

- IANS