Nournews: By repeating phrases such as “nuclear ambitions” and “a direct threat to U.S. territory and our bases abroad,” and by making unrealistic claims about the killing of thousands of protesters, Trump filled the speech with a sense of urgency and alarm—an atmosphere that facilitates swift domestic reactions and enhances the legitimacy of future decisions.
This tone and sentence structure, beyond their media appeal, function as an important tool for shaping public opinion and highlighting the Iranian threat. Every word and statistic was chosen not merely to report reality, but to generate sensitivity and convey seriousness. Even Trump’s emphasis that Tehran “has never declared that it has completely dismantled its nuclear program,” and his repetition of this claim, strengthens his narrative, portraying Iran not merely as a potential rival but as an enemy whose obstacles must be identified in advance.
However, a purely threat-centered reading of the speech limits the analysis. A second scenario—one that aligns more closely with U.S. domestic and foreign realities, while not contradicting his hawkish approach—is “expectation engineering”: a scenario aimed at controlling Iran’s mindset and preparing U.S. public opinion and policymakers to accept limited or incomplete agreements.
This interpretation is supported by several political and field realities: the boycott of the speech by some senators and representatives, critical reactions from media and lawmakers, domestic polls showing that the majority of Americans oppose entering a war, leaked remarks by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Trump’s reaction to them, and proposals exchanged between the two sides. All these indicate that U.S. decision-making on Iran is highly uncertain.
For months, Trump has used the strategy of “brinkmanship” as a psychological pressure tool—deploying large amounts of military equipment to West Asia, escalating verbal threats, and highlighting Iran’s potential danger—to force Tehran into submission.
The failure of this strategy has now become evident in recent remarks by Steve Witkoff, who told Fox News that Trump was surprised and angry that Iran did not fear or surrender, and could not understand why Tehran did not panic and choose the path of submission. This reaction shows that the U.S. expected Iran to retreat or offer immediate concessions under a show of force and maximum pressure, but Iran’s strategic policy and the realities on the ground did not meet those expectations.
If Trump now chooses the path of war, given the many uncertainties about what would happen afterward, he lacks a clear picture and is aware of the high risk of failing to achieve his political and security objectives. Therefore, if his intention is to justify the heavy U.S. military presence in the region through an agreement, he must use psychological and political tools to present any agreement—even if limited or flawed—as a major success for domestic and international audiences. This can only be achieved by emphasizing the Iranian threat.
By resisting maximum pressure, Iran has consolidated its strategic framework and increased the cost of U.S. decisions. Trump, however, seeks to maintain domestic political alignment by displaying power and to frame any negotiation outcome in his favor and market it to public opinion.
These two scenarios coexist in the speech: on one hand, Iran is portrayed as a real and imminent threat to attract media and public attention; on the other, this portrayal serves as a pressure tool to reduce resistance and legitimize a potential agreement.
The combination of an immediate-threat scenario and expectation engineering makes the analysis of Trump’s speech more complex and multi-layered. Any future decision—whether in the Geneva negotiations or in field actions—can be interpreted in light of these two approaches. Trump’s speech should not be read solely as a pre-war scenario. U.S. domestic realities, the behavior of lawmakers, media, and observers, and existing uncertainties indicate that a significant part of Trump’s message is related to “defining the criteria for success for an agreement,” not merely preparing for war. At the same time, his alarmist statements also reinforce the pre-war scenario, reminding us that foreign policy decisions constantly oscillate between military and diplomatic options.
Ultimately, Trump’s Iran-related speech can be viewed from two angles simultaneously: a pre-war scenario focused on preparing public opinion for the possibility of military conflict, and an anti-war scenario focused on engineering domestic expectations and legitimizing an agreement. The combination of these two scenarios enriches and makes the analysis more realistic, showing that any definitive conclusion about war or agreement, without considering these two levels, would be incomplete.