A significant portion of Donald Trump’s public persona has been devoted to the construction of an alternative reality. Two days after assuming office in 2017, adviser Kellyanne Conway established the prevailing atmosphere by asserting that the White House possessed “alternative facts” regarding the size of the inauguration crowd. These “alternative facts” were demonstrably untrue. Beyond that, Trump disseminated over 30,000 further fabrications throughout his presidency.
Presently, Trump and his associates are progressively advocating for an alternative reality in which the United States never removed him from office in 2020 and all of the world’s and the United States’ most pressing problems—including inflation, the conflict in Ukraine, and the Gaza Strip—appear to vanish miraculously. However, they are beginning to transgress.
Trump stated this weekend that Iran’s unprecedented aerial assault against Israel would not have occurred if he or she had been in office. “It is common knowledge that you, they, and everyone else are all aware of that.”
Reinforced by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-New York), this assault on Israel never would have occurred during the Trump administration.
“Under the administration of President @realDonaldTrump, these attacks on Israel never would have occurred,” added Arizona Senate candidate and Republican Kari Lake.
“This would have never occurred under Trump,” said Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), who, along with the other two candidates, has been linked to the notion of running mate for Trump. “Instruct me if I am mistaken.”
The obvious benefit of this strategy is that Hunt cannot be proven incorrect in practice.
It cannot be falsified. Furthermore, it appears that Americans are at least somewhat receptive to the notion, as evidenced by the fact that their current evaluations of Trump’s presidency surpass anything they ever said in real time. They have greater faith in Trump than in President Biden regarding national security, foreign policy, and inflation.
However, before simply restating the uncontradictable assertion, it is prudent to provide some context. Implementing the talking point in the context of Iran undermines the assertion.
It is true that no conflict broke out in Gaza while Trump was in office. However, tensions between Iran and Israel did threaten to explode on numerous occasions. Moreover, beyond that. We witnessed Iran’s increased confidence to target not only Israel but also American citizens.
A Trump-approved U.S. missile strike on January 3, 2020, eliminated Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, who, according to the U.S. government, was plotting attacks against Americans.
In retaliation, Iran attacked an American military base in Iraq several days later. While sheltering in place, one contractor sustained a severe eye injury and one hundred and ten personnel were forced to endure traumatic brain injuries.
The provocation inherent in last week’s direct attack against Israel is noteworthy. The Israel Defense Forces estimate that 99 percent of the projectiles were intercepted, and only one severe injury has been identified. However, this pales in comparison to the attack that occurred in 2020.
Importantly, that attack of 2020 targeted U.S. personnel directly, as opposed to an ally. Adel Abdul Mahdi, the prime minister of Iraq, stated that Iran informed him beforehand that the United States was the intended objective. (Trump appeared to assert that Iran had also informed him in advance that it would intentionally miss the facility last year; however, fact checker Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post dismissed this claim as “irrational,” adding that the majority of the missiles did indeed strike the base.)
In addition, the Iranian assault on American personnel was unprecedented; it was the first time in decades of tensions between the United States and Iran that Iran had specifically targeted an American position in the Middle East.
Disregarding the parallel between the two occurrences, it does not precisely appear that Iran was intimidated by the might of Trump’s presidency. Despite the potential limitations of Iran’s response to Soleimani’s assassination (a claim subsequently made by Trump to justify his own non-retaliatory action), the United States government determined that Soleimani had been honing his plans to launch an assault against us during the presidency of Trump.
Notable as well is the fact that this transpired during Trump’s final full year in office, after he had had ample opportunity to shape the nation’s foreign policy. There were legitimate concerns that the January 2020 events could spark a conflict between Iran and the United States, in addition to Iranian involvement in a Middle Eastern conflict.
That did not occur. However, at least one former Trump aide who was present during the months preceding the early 2020 conflict with Iran refutes Trump’s talking point.
“On this point, I simply believe Trump is delusional,” former national security adviser to Trump John Bolton stated on CNN on Sunday. “No one is able to refute or confirm this point in any way.” “He is at a loss for what to do in this predicament in the Middle East.”
As of this moment, it seems that Americans hold this point of view with skepticism, at least in regards to the other conflict that Trump asserts he could have prevented, namely the one in Ukraine. A month ago, Americans were divided in a Washington Post-Schar School poll as to whether or not Vladimir Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still president, with 34% to 51% believing this. Trump supporters were the only ones who believed Putin would not have done so, with only about one in five believing Putin would have nonetheless.
Obviously, Trump will continue to utter this type of thing in the hopes that people will take it in its entirety.
