Cairo: Hani Kamal El-Din
Trump Attacks Iran, Declares Total Break in Dialogue and Slams Obama Over Billions
In an incendiary new message posted on his social media platform Truth Social, former U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce attack on Iran, signaling a complete breakdown in any diplomatic engagement. With characteristic bluntness, Trump attacks Iran, claiming the U.S. has not communicated with Iranian officials since American forces “obliterated” the country’s key nuclear sites.
“I’m offering Iran nothing — unlike Obama… and I haven’t spoken to them since we totally destroyed their nuclear facilities,” Trump wrote.
These remarks come at a time of acute regional tension, days after a series of coordinated Israeli and American military strikes targeted sensitive nuclear and military infrastructure deep inside Iran. The broader implications of Trump’s attack on Iran stretch far beyond partisan rhetoric, hinting at a possible return to maximum-pressure policies and reigniting debate over past U.S. diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.
No Talks, No Deals, Just Deterrence
The statement by Trump is unambiguous: he has no intention of re-engaging with Iran diplomatically. By underlining the absence of communication following the airstrikes, Trump attacks Iran not only militarily but diplomatically, signaling a shift from negotiations to confrontation. His tone is aggressive, his intent clear: Iran must be confronted, not courted.
This stance directly contrasts with the Obama-era approach, which sought to neutralize Iran’s nuclear ambitions through the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a multilateral deal Trump famously withdrew from in 2018. His post now serves as a public reaffirmation of that hardline posture.
“Billions to the Mullahs”: The Obama Reference
In a pointed jab, Trump referenced what has become a political flashpoint in U.S. foreign policy: the claim that the Obama administration “gave billions to Iran.” This refers to the unfreezing of Iranian assets and cash transfers as part of the JCPOA. Trump used the reference to paint the previous administration as soft and accommodating, implying that such generosity only emboldened Iran’s ambitions.
By contrast, Trump attacks Iran by highlighting military might and sanctions as tools of containment. His language evokes finality: Iran is no longer a partner at the table but a target in the crosshairs.
The Airstrikes: From “Rising Lion” to Total Destruction
On June 13, Israel launched a bold military campaign dubbed Operation Rising Lion, targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities in Natanz, Arak, and Fordow. In retaliation, Iran initiated Operation Truthful Promise 3, firing missiles into Israeli territory and activating proxies across the region.
Nine days later, on June 22, Trump declared that U.S. air forces had conducted strikes on three major nuclear installations in Iran. In his words, “Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities were completely and totally destroyed.”
This level of direct American involvement marks a dramatic escalation, and Trump’s attack on Iran has now moved from rhetoric to kinetic force. It also sends a stark message to Tehran: the age of strategic patience is over.
Ceasefire and Silence: Trump Claims Credit for Ending the War
Surprisingly, just two days after the dramatic strikes, Trump announced that Iran and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire. “The world will welcome the official end of a 12-day war,” he wrote. The announcement raised eyebrows: no joint statement from Tehran or Jerusalem confirmed the truce.
Still, Trump’s declaration served its political purpose. By presenting himself as both the executor of decisive military action and the broker of peace, Trump positioned himself as the ultimate strongman — a contrast to what he describes as the “weak diplomacy” of his predecessors.
Strategic Messaging or Campaign Rhetoric?
Some analysts argue that Trump’s attack on Iran serves dual purposes: on one hand, to frame himself as a wartime leader capable of swift action, and on the other, to reignite nationalist fervor as part of his ongoing 2024 campaign strategy.
It’s no coincidence that these statements are flooding Truth Social — a platform followed by his most fervent base. His portrayal of strength, clarity, and opposition to Iran may serve well among voters disillusioned with Biden’s cautious diplomacy and economic entanglements.
Where Is Iran’s Response?
While Iran launched a fierce counterstrike following the Israeli operation, its official stance on the U.S. strikes remains muted. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has yet to directly address Trump’s claims, and Iranian state media has largely focused on the Israeli aggression, sidestepping American involvement.
This measured response could reflect a strategic choice. Iran’s leadership might be weighing its options, especially given the economic toll of renewed sanctions and the risk of full-scale war with two nuclear-armed adversaries.
Yet, history suggests that silence from Tehran rarely equates to submission.
Beyond the Headlines: Implications for Global Security
The consequences of Trump attacking Iran extend far beyond the region. It complicates efforts by the EU and China to revive nuclear talks, increases oil market volatility, and may embolden hardliners within Iran to push for open confrontation.
Additionally, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — if verified — could destabilize non-proliferation norms and spur regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to pursue similar capabilities under the banner of deterrence.
Maximum Pressure Reloaded?
With these statements, Trump appears to be reloading the “maximum pressure” doctrine. His approach is unapologetically aggressive: no talks, no deals, just force. Whether this stance will bring peace or further escalation remains to be seen.
One thing is clear: Trump attacks Iran not only to settle scores with Tehran but also to rewrite his legacy on Middle Eastern foreign policy — one airstrike, one tweet, one headline at a time.
