Topics: Donald Trump, Politics, Social Media, US News, World News, Iran, Israel, News
Donald Trump has made a seriously bold claim about why he launched the military strikes on Iran, and people have picked up on one pretty major issue.
Tensions between the US and Iran have now surged to the highest point in decades after Iran launched a missile attack on United States airbases in Qatar on Monday (23 June), following Trump's orders of direct strikes that he said 'obliterated' the three key nuclear facilities - Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow - across the Middle Eastern country.
While Trump's military strikes against Iran over the weekend aimed to disrupt the nation's nuclear program and eventually, in a roundabout way, lead to a ceasefire, the strikes provoked retaliation and ceasefire violations, which seriously escalated tensions between Iran and Israel.
The President has been very vocal about the conflict this week, particularly on social media, and he's once again taken to his platform to speak about why he launched strikes on Iran.
Advert
Taking to his own social media platform Truth Social earlier this afternoon (25 June), the 79-year-old Republican wrote: "Last weekend, the United States successfully carried out a massive precision strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, and it was very, very successful.
"It was called OBLITERATION. This incredible exercise of American strength has paved the way for peace, with a historic ceasefire agreement…"
Trump's claims of 'paving the way for peace' lack quite a lot of evidence, given that the ceasefire still remains fragile and Iran's nuclear ambitions continue.
This is because Trump's claim that the US 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear facilities is not fully supported as, while the superpower did hit Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, US intelligence reports have suggested that they only delayed Iran's nuclear program by months, not destroyed or 'obliterated' it.
It didn't take long for people to rush to X to share their verdicts on the irony of Trump's post and pointing out the fact that said 'historic ceasefire' was actually broken shortly after it was first announced.
One X user questioned: "That’s why they ignored the ceasefire agreement right??"
"Lmao, 'obliteration' sure sounds like a path to peace," a second sarcastically wrote, while a third chimed in: "Yup because it didn’t bring the threat of world war whatsoever."
A fourth penned: "The concept of dropping missiles on a country to restore peace…"
"The disconnect between his words and what actually happened is honestly hard to believe," lamented a fifth, while a sixth agreed: "Quoting 'peace' after calling it 'OBLITERATION' is wild. You can’t bomb your way into harmony and call it diplomacy."
And a final X user declared: "Calling destruction 'peace' doesn’t change the reality on the ground. True peace is built through dialogue, not obliteration."
