Trump’s war rhetoric is coarse. It’s also heard differently, depending on the audience

In one of his last letters President Trump complained on social media that he doesn’t get enough credit for “completely destroying Iran’s terrorist regime militarily, economically and otherwise.”

“We have unmatched firepower, unlimited ammunition, and plenty of time,” he wrote of a war that has disrupted global oil supplies, sharply increased gas prices, cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, left thousands dead and wounded, and so far defied Trump’s own “short-term” timetable.

“Watch what happens to these deranged assholes today,” Trump added. “They have been killing innocent people all over the world for 47 years, and now I am killing them as the 47th President of the United States. What an honor to do this!”

According to experts in presidential rhetoric and propaganda, in recent days Trump and other senior officials in his administration (notably Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth) have projected confidence and power toward Iran in a blunt and triumphant tone unprecedented for U.S. wartime presidents and Cabinet members.

They consistently defined the war in terms of how hard the United States hit Iran rather than why it should hit Iran. They talked about destroying Iran’s navy and air force, eliminating its leadership, and making the United States ever more “respectful” around the world, including showing no mercy.

“This was never intended to be a fair fight, and it’s not a fair fight. We’re punching them while they’re down, which is exactly the way it should be,” Hegseth said.

What is missing is the seriousness with which past wartime leaders faced dead U.S. soldiers, a stubborn enemy and an unstable tactical position; This has been replaced by a message of US ruthlessness – belittling Iran rather than concern for its civilians, or focusing on American ideals around which US presidents have long tried to rally the world, especially in times of war.

“When people can see the effects of war as they fill up their gas tanks and Americans have casualties, the triumphant tone is not something a president normally does,” said Robert C. Rowland, professor of rhetoric at the University of Kansas and author of “Donald Trump’s Rhetoric: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy.”

“Many presidents don’t use that tone for personal moral reasons,” Rowland said, “but they know it can backfire when things aren’t going well.”

James J. Kimble, a communications professor and historian of propaganda at Seton Hall University, said U.S. presidents “generally” strike a respectful tone in wartime, although there are some exceptions. Justifying the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan, President Truman wrote: “When you have to deal with a monster“While the United States produces World War II posters designed to “demonise and dehumanize the German enemy,” he said, “you must treat him like a monster.”

Kimble, however, said Trump’s messages were “much cruder,” including his “expression of joy at the deaths of foreign fighters.”

“This goes beyond the idea of ​​defeating the enemy on the battlefield and moves more towards a kind of defeat as humiliation, deliberate humiliation,” he said. “This is physical violence as well as schoolyard bullying.”

Asked about Trump’s rhetoric, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Trump “will always be proud to recognize the incredible accomplishments of our brave soldiers.”

“Under President Trump’s determined leadership, America’s heroic war warriors are meeting or exceeding all of their objectives under Operation Epic Rage,” he said. “The legacy media wants us to apologize for highlighting the incredible success of the US military, but the White House will continue to showcase many examples of Iran’s ballistic missiles, production facilities, and dreams of nuclear weapons being destroyed in real time.”

Trump has built his political career on outspoken rhetoric, and his messages about Iran have won applause from his supporters. Polls showed that the public We are deeply divided on the war – drawing much less public support more than in past wars, but there is broad support from Republicans.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the media of ignoring the “clear” goals the president and others have set for the war effort, including eliminating Iran’s missile systems, preventing it from developing nuclear weapons and stopping Trump’s “sense” that an attack on the United States is imminent.

But Trump and Hegseth have strayed from this framework with their brash rhetoric and focus on the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other Iranian leaders.

Trump dismissed reports that the US bombed a school full of children in Iran, claiming that Iran might actually be responsible. Findings reported by US intelligence He said it was an American attack.

Hegseth expressed disdain for wartime rules designed to limit civilian casualties, calling them “stupid rules of engagement”, raising concerns about reckless US bombing.

“Our warriors have maximum authority granted by the president himself and yours truly,” Hegseth said. “Our rules of engagement are bold, precise, and designed to unleash American power, not fetter it.”

The White House has also been pushing back against a wave of wartime propaganda on social media, often using the same disrespectful, bullish tone, experts said.

In one video, film clips of superheroes and soldiers were interspersed with actual footage of Iranian targets being blown up beneath the words “AMERICAN WAY OF JUSTICE.” The clip garnered condemnation including actor Ben StillerHe objected to the inclusion of images from his movie “Tropic Thunder”, saying, “War is not a movie.”

Hegseth’s courage Caricatured on “Saturday Night Live””, opened two weeks in a row with a satirical depiction of him as angry, foolish, and excited by the violence of war.

All of this took place against the backdrop of Islamophobic statements by members of Congress about

To be sure, Iranian leaders have expressed similar disdain for the United States for years. Khamenei, who was killed at the beginning of the war, was known for fueling anti-American sentiment and speaking to crowds chanting “Death to America.”

But US presidents have traditionally spoken more cautiously. They criticized the United States’ enemies, but often drew a contrast between the United States and the values ​​the United States claimed to defend globally. They expressed confidence in past U.S. missions but refrained from striking a celebratory or triumphant tone; especially at the beginning of the war, in the midst of intense fighting, when American troops were still dying.

That’s not the case for Trump, who said Wednesday, “You never like to say you’ve won too soon. We won. We won… It was all over in the first hour.”

He also said, “In the last 11 days, our military has nearly destroyed Iran” and “they have nothing.”

Six US soldiers lost their lives when a refueling plane crashed in Iraq on Thursday. On Friday, the U.S. military announced it would send 2,500 Marines and an additional U.S. warship to the conflict.

Kimble said there are several ways to evaluate Trump’s war rhetoric. One is intentional messages intended to deter the enemy “through the lens of PSYCHOP or psychological operations,” similar to how the United States dropped leaflets on foreign fighters in World War II telling them to surrender or die. According to this perspective, Trump is speaking directly to the Iranians and trying to make them “perceive victory as impossible.”

Another is to see Trump and Hegseth as projecting a tough image to their MAGA base, their Democratic rivals, and other countries like Cuba that they might be primed to challenge.

Rowland said Trump “should always be the big dog in the room” and his war messages should be considered in that context.

“Most of the rhetoric is performative cruelty,” Rowland said. “This is about making war appear dominant rather than showing that it is good for the United States, the region, the West and the world.”