"We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong."On April 1, 2026 (April Fools’ Day, as informally celebrated in the USA!), President Donald J Trump delivered that terrible threat during a White House speech about the month-old war against Iran. Sadly, he neglected to rise to the situation, in that he failed either to state clear war goals or overcome contradictions caused by his previous speeches, which claimed that he had previously "obliterated” Iran’s nuclear weapons.
 |
| Donald Trump, White House photo |
Thus, Trump failed to meet the situation’s demands. In 1968, communication professor Lloyd Bitzer, in a landmark article on “The Rhetorical Situation,” showed that certain situations cry out for a speech. For example, the Gettysburg cemetery dedication called for a speech, and Abraham Lincoln responded brilliantly. Lincoln stated a powerful goal: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
What Did the Gettysburg Address Really Say?
Likewise, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor called for a speech, and President Franklin Roosevelt likewise responded with greatness: “a day which will live in infamy.”
Bitzer explained that any rhetorical situation has three parts: an exigence, which is “an imperfection marked by urgency.” The second part is the audience, and the third consists of the “constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience.” As an example of a constraint, Roosevelt promised, “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion,” for all wars require great resolve.
Like Pearl Harbor, the Iran war called out for a speech: the public (the audience) needed to hear the President state the war’s goals, reassure the world, and inspire the nation for the oncoming struggle. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, Trump said little to reassure or inspire his audience. His speech failed because he did not overcome the constraints that he himself had created.
Donald Trump, the Iran War, and the Art of Doublespeak
Indeed, since Trump had previously boasted that Iran’s nuclear weapons had already been obliterated, he needed to tack on more justifications. Thus, he complained about Iran’s “vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles,” noted that Iran had killed many of its internal political opponents, complained about the long-ago bombing of the USS Cole, and grumbled dubiously that “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal” was a “disaster.”
In other words (granting, as I do, that Iran’s government is evil), Trump followed the rhetorical strategy of throwing handfuls of half-cooked spaghetti against the wall, hoping to see a few strands stick. Trump's justification for the war nevertheless remained slim, for he had already trapped himself in a contradictory position. You cannot, after all, destroy something that you had already “obliterated.”
Note about Presentation: One cannot overlook the week, hesitant, and monotonic delivery that Trump brought to this April 1 speech. That vacillating approach was not calculated to inspire anyone. His presentation seemed to lack his usual energetic, forceful, and sardonic persona.
Like Pearl Harbor, the Iran war called out for a speech: the public (the audience) needed to hear the President state the war’s goals, reassure the world, and inspire the nation for the oncoming struggle. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, Trump said little to reassure or inspire his audience. His speech failed because he did not overcome the constraints that he himself had created.
The First Constraint
The first constraint that Trump had imposed on himself involved his main rationale for the war: the need to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons:
The first constraint that Trump had imposed on himself involved his main rationale for the war: the need to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons:
“For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat.”As it happens, however, Trump had previously stated – vociferously emphasized! – that the United States’ June 2025 bombing raids had already “obliterated” (his word) Iran’s nuclear program. Since this presumed war goal had, he had said, already been achieved, why did he start the current war?
Donald Trump, the Iran War, and the Art of Doublespeak
Indeed, since Trump had previously boasted that Iran’s nuclear weapons had already been obliterated, he needed to tack on more justifications. Thus, he complained about Iran’s “vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles,” noted that Iran had killed many of its internal political opponents, complained about the long-ago bombing of the USS Cole, and grumbled dubiously that “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal” was a “disaster.”
In other words (granting, as I do, that Iran’s government is evil), Trump followed the rhetorical strategy of throwing handfuls of half-cooked spaghetti against the wall, hoping to see a few strands stick. Trump's justification for the war nevertheless remained slim, for he had already trapped himself in a contradictory position. You cannot, after all, destroy something that you had already “obliterated.”
The Second Constraint
This led to the second constraint that Trump failed to overcome, which was the need to state a war goal. Again, he was constrained by his previous claims that he had already crushed Iran's ambitions. To state goals was part of Trump's rhetorical situation, that is to say, part of the exigence. The American public – Trump’s audience – needed to know why we were fighting and what we hoped to accomplish. Now, a goal is an outcome by definition. However, instead of stating an outcome, Trump only stated a method - the method of violent destruction:
Yes, Trump complained about the cruelty of Iran’s government. Oh? Did that mean that regime change was his goal, then? Fascinatingly, Trump slithered about regime change:
Why Trump’s Speech Failed
Whenever they are called to war, the people of the United States want to know why they are fighting and what goals the government expects to accomplish. We live in a constitutional, representative republic, not a dictatorship, which means that only massive public commitment can lead to any war’s success. Trump’s speech failed to rise to the rhetorical situation, for he said too little, too late. He failed to articulate clear goals. Instead of rousing the nation to fight, as Lincoln did at Gettysburg and Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor, Trump played make-believe by pretending that victory was already at hand.
War is always a great horror, and suffering is never to be embraced. All the same, bombs themselves do not win wars. War requires commitment. Americans will fight, and fight hard, if they perceive a worthy cause. Now, as Bitzer explained, every public speaker must confront and overcome constraints. Nevertheless, Trump’s weak, ambivalent speech failed to meet the rhetorical situation, leaving the nation in moral limbo. He failed to clarify the war’s goals, and, instead of overcoming the constraints against his speech’s success, he let the constraints trap him in contradictions. Wartime presidents always need to rise to the situation. Create passion, or invite defeat.
"They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force.... If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we’ll hit them with missiles very hard again. We have all the cards. They have none."So, yes, Trump announced that the United States was bombing Iran. He did not, however, clarify the political outcome that he expected the bombing to produce.
Yes, Trump complained about the cruelty of Iran’s government. Oh? Did that mean that regime change was his goal, then? Fascinatingly, Trump slithered about regime change:
“Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead.” [Italics added]Startlingly, Trump even said that his unstated war goals had already been achieved:
“We’ve beaten and completely decimated Iran. They are decimated both militarily and economically and in every other way.”Yet, paradoxically, Trump forcefully insisted that he would continue the war until his objectives, whatever they were, had been met:
“I made clear from the beginning of Operation Epic Fury that we will continue until our objectives are fully achieved. Thanks to the progress we’ve made. I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly. Very shortly.”Regrettably, Iran’s government never got the message that their military forces had been devastated, for, subsequently to Trump’s speech, they shot down two American aircraft, presumably using their nonexistent antiaircraft weapons. As I write, Iran continues to obstruct the crucial Strait of Hormuz. Just today, a few days after the speech, Iranian missiles destroyed some of our allies’ data centers. The sad fact remains that, in any war, the enemy always gets a vote.
Why Trump’s Speech Failed
Whenever they are called to war, the people of the United States want to know why they are fighting and what goals the government expects to accomplish. We live in a constitutional, representative republic, not a dictatorship, which means that only massive public commitment can lead to any war’s success. Trump’s speech failed to rise to the rhetorical situation, for he said too little, too late. He failed to articulate clear goals. Instead of rousing the nation to fight, as Lincoln did at Gettysburg and Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor, Trump played make-believe by pretending that victory was already at hand.
War is always a great horror, and suffering is never to be embraced. All the same, bombs themselves do not win wars. War requires commitment. Americans will fight, and fight hard, if they perceive a worthy cause. Now, as Bitzer explained, every public speaker must confront and overcome constraints. Nevertheless, Trump’s weak, ambivalent speech failed to meet the rhetorical situation, leaving the nation in moral limbo. He failed to clarify the war’s goals, and, instead of overcoming the constraints against his speech’s success, he let the constraints trap him in contradictions. Wartime presidents always need to rise to the situation. Create passion, or invite defeat.
by William D. Harpine
___________
Note about Presentation: One cannot overlook the week, hesitant, and monotonic delivery that Trump brought to this April 1 speech. That vacillating approach was not calculated to inspire anyone. His presentation seemed to lack his usual energetic, forceful, and sardonic persona.
Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine
